Navision 4.0 XBRL 2.1 Support Missing?

saytian

I've tried in vain to import some XBRL 2.1 taxonomies into Navision 4.0; a browse through Navision help files seems to indicate it only supports XBRL 1.0 and XBRL 2.0. In other words, it's built-in XBRL processor doesn't understand XBRL 2.1. Therefore, I'll have to wait for a future version of Navision to use XBRL 2.1.

Could anyone else validate my view ?

Tks.
Saytian

jemmy

Yeah, I think we definitely have to wait for the next release...
Why do you use XBRL 2.1, did you create yourself? :?:

Jemmy

saytian

Most of the current taxonomies listed on "http://www.xbrl.org/FRTaxonomies/" are XBRL 2.1 compliant. To my knowledge, XBRL 2.1 was released in 2003, and XBRL 2.0 back in 2001. Hence, it seems that Navision has been slow to embrace the new standard.

johnpaul.bolo

Just want to share with you that since this issue is wayback 2005 i've tested and do importing/upload the XBRL Taxonomies in Navision 4.0 but in SP3 and it seems all are working but except the Labels error "The length of the string exceeds the size of the string buffer".

Regarding this label error, i already found a workaournd for this error. And i already succesfully upload and create the instance document too.

But suddenly when i check the XBRL instance document and found that the contexts defined are:
<contextRef xmlns="" id="nNC0">
<entity>
<identifier scheme="IDScheme">12345678R</identifier>
</entity>
<period>
<startDate>2005-01-01</startDate>
<endDate>2005-12-31</endDate>
</period>
</contextRef>
<contextRef xmlns="" id="NC0">
<entity>
<identifier scheme="IDScheme">12345678R</identifier>
</entity>
<period>
<startDate>2005-01-01</startDate>
<endDate>2005-12-31</endDate>
</period>
</contextRef>
<contextRef xmlns="" id="NC1">
<entity>
<identifier scheme="IDScheme">12345678R</identifier>
</entity>
<period>
<startDate>2005-01-01</startDate>
<endDate>2005-12-31</endDate>
</period>
</contextRef>


Wherein in standard XBRL the recognized context names and id's are:

1. Company_Current_ForPeriod
2. Company_Current_AsOf
3. Consolidated_Current_ForPeriod
4. Consolidated_Current_AsOf
5. Company_Prior_ForPeriod
6. Company_Prior_AsOf
7. Consolidated_Prior_ForPeriod
8. Consolidated_Prior_AsOf

Also, I noticed that all the contexts have the same date periods.

Have anyone of you guys found an issue reg this Intance Document for Context name / Id's? [-o<

John