英语高手 帮忙翻译一下一篇英语文章 谢谢哦
In the following section I present the arguments as to why these elements of the Consensus are flawed.
The Standards Developed Should Be Confined to Principles and Not Become Detailed Rules
Principles, not rules, seem to be at the core of the Accounting Consensus. Doubts arise about the substance of a consensus when everybody is for it, but nobody can tell you what it means, or give you some substantive examples. We know the biblical commandments ? Thou shalt not steal, for example ? as principles. Both IFRS as well as FAS exhibit wide variation in the level of detail in their individual pronouncements.3 A recent compilation of international standards and their official interpretations and guidance published in March 2008 has 2,752 pages. One would have to think long and hard to find a profession whose principles require this many pages to state. It is difficult not to wonder about the distinction between principles and rules as visualized by the accounting standard writers.
Market valuation is a principle, as is historical cost valuation. In contrast, fairness is an ex post judgment about a particular instance of valuation in the eyes of preparers and users. Alternatively, it could be thought of as their ex ante judgment about the outcomes expected from a given method of valuation. How can a standard specify the numbers arrived at by the application of a particular method to be "fair" by definition?
制定的标准应限于原则和不能成为实施细则
原则，而不是规则，似乎是为核心的会计共识。产生怀疑的实质内容达成一致意见时，大家都为它，但没有人可以告诉你这是什么意思，或者给你一些实质性的例子。我们知道圣经诫命？你应该不偷，例如？作为原则。
这两个国际财务报告准则，以及联邦反垄断局展出的各种差别的详细程度在各自pronouncements.3最近汇编的国际标准和其官方的解释和指导，在2008年3月出版了2752页。人们会想到漫长而艰难的找到一个专业的原则要求这个国家的许多网页。很难不怀疑的区分原则和规则的可视化的会计标准作家。
市场估价是一个原则，这是历史成本估价。与此相反，公平是一种事后判断某一实例估价眼中的编制者和使用者。另外，它可以被认为是他们事先判断的预期结果某一估价方法。
怎样一个标准的指定号码抵达运用特定的方法是“公平”的定义？
