<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 10 questions when reviewing XBRL software</title>
	<atom:link href="http://xbrlblog.com/10-questions-when-reviewing-xbrl-software.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://xbrlblog.com/10-questions-when-reviewing-xbrl-software.html</link>
	<description>it is about improving the way information is shared</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:59:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Sandman</title>
		<link>http://xbrlblog.com/10-questions-when-reviewing-xbrl-software.html/comment-page-1#comment-4586</link>
		<dc:creator>John Sandman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xbrlblog.com/?p=289#comment-4586</guid>
		<description>Hi Derek:
To pick up where I left off in my initial message: my essential question concerns what process exists to vet or rank XBRL vendors, particularly in support of the automation of corporate actions.  XBRL.US has a lot of vendors featured prominently on its Website.  XBRL.org doesn&#039;t seem to.  Is there anything, for example, like the Swift Partners Solutions?  Should there be?

Because XBRL was originally an accounting standard and because it later became deployed by government regulators in the securities and banking industries, the corporate actions wrinkle is new.   Do you have any comments on how firms should approach XBRL vendors that design corporate actions functionality?

Thanks in advance for any comments,

John Sandman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Derek:<br />
To pick up where I left off in my initial message: my essential question concerns what process exists to vet or rank XBRL vendors, particularly in support of the automation of corporate actions.  XBRL.US has a lot of vendors featured prominently on its Website.  XBRL.org doesn&#8217;t seem to.  Is there anything, for example, like the Swift Partners Solutions?  Should there be?</p>
<p>Because XBRL was originally an accounting standard and because it later became deployed by government regulators in the securities and banking industries, the corporate actions wrinkle is new.   Do you have any comments on how firms should approach XBRL vendors that design corporate actions functionality?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance for any comments,</p>
<p>John Sandman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Sandman</title>
		<link>http://xbrlblog.com/10-questions-when-reviewing-xbrl-software.html/comment-page-1#comment-4585</link>
		<dc:creator>John Sandman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:35:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xbrlblog.com/?p=289#comment-4585</guid>
		<description>Hi Derek:
I&#039;m writing an article of London-based Investor Services Journal about the use of XBRL for corporate actions, particularly in Europe.  
This is a test--I want to make sure this goes through.  If it doesn&#039;t kick back, I&#039;ll provide more details.
Thanks,
John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Derek:<br />
I&#8217;m writing an article of London-based Investor Services Journal about the use of XBRL for corporate actions, particularly in Europe.<br />
This is a test&#8211;I want to make sure this goes through.  If it doesn&#8217;t kick back, I&#8217;ll provide more details.<br />
Thanks,<br />
John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

