REMARK: This applies to company extension linkbases, but no standard taxonomy linkbase violates it.

REMARK: This is tested in 604-03-xbrl-valid.

REMARK: Note that type='extended' is handled by XBRL 2.1 so this really only applies to type='resource', and there are other rules for reference and footnote that would trigger errors if the xlink:role were missing. Therefore just one variation for the label resource, for now. Also note that this only applies to a company extension linkbase.

REMARK: type='extended' is handled by XBRL 2.1 so this really only applies to type='resource', moreover, footnote and reference would be handled by other rules so this is only for labels.

REMARK: This only applies to a company extension linkbase. There is no standard taxonomy linkbase that violates this rule, but if there were, it would be included in a 'good' test variation.

REMARK: the roles declared in these tests have link:definition text that conforms to 6.7.12 even though 6.7.12 was only meant to apply to roles that are used on link:presentation.

REMARK: This applies only to company extension taxonomies. The arc roles declared in http://www.xbrl.org/2005/xbrldt-2005.xsd are okay because that is a standard taxonomy location. The arc roles declared in US GAAP 2009 are not in a standard taxonomy location.

REMARK: Although this error is caught at the EDGARLink submission (transport) level it is easy to verify before attempted submission.

REMARK: This only applies to a company extension linkbase. There is no standard taxonomy linkbase that violates this rule, but if there were, it would be included in a 'good' test variation.

REMARK: This only applies to a company extension linkbase. The RR 2010 standard taxonomy linkbase contains links with priority attributes of 10, and is therefore a 'good' test variation.