I'm quite surprised that the markup incompatibility with Microsoft Office is still an issue. Are they actively sabotaging the Open Document Foundation, or is it just really difficult to achieve?
Here is our meta report for MSO formats: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/showdependencytree.cgi?i...
"depends on 1394 open bugs" - this includes all the further meta reports.
The article mentions EMF/EMF+. this format is basically a list of calls to GDI.h and is a bitch to map to other graphic stacks when you are not on Windows.
The specification of the format is public (kudos for Microsoft), it helps a lot. But there are a lot of corner cases and the spec can be quite hard to understand some times. Computing correctly the origin is tricky for example (VIEWPORTORGEX, WINDOWORGEX etc).
For some stuff, it's impossible to get it right.
One example that comes to my mind is a text encoding bug I got a year ago (I maintain an emf to svg conversion library). It took me one week to track it down. In most cases the strings are UTF-16. But in weird cases, when the ETO_GLYPH_INDEX flag is set, the "encoding" is directly the index of the glyph inside the selected font.
It's not the most portable way to handle text... If you don't have the exact same font on your computer, there is a good chance the text will not be displayed correctly.
And converting back to a well known encoding is tricky (using the cmap tables of the ttf file, you have to build a reverse cmap, pray there is a 1-1 mapping between glyph and unicode, and convert back to utf-8 or something).
Even Microsoft itself, on the Mac OS, version got it wrong.
For information, the bits of code that is handling "font index encoding":
https://github.com/kakwa/libemf2svg/blob/master/src/lib/emf2...
To
https://github.com/kakwa/libemf2svg/blob/master/src/lib/emf2...
What people generally don't understand is that the save file formats do not describe what the output will look like. Back in the old, old, old days you would write a word processor and to "save" the file, you would just write a binary image of your data structures. That was what the doc file format was originally.
Although, people didn't tend to program this way back then, imagine a Rails server. Now imagine that you handed over your database (with tables that correspond to each model object). That's kind of analogous to a "save" file. In order to render the data, you need the business logic (which, in Rails, is usually housed in the controllers) and you need the rendering logic (which is usually housed in the views). Just having a description of the database tables doesn't really help me all that much in rendering the data as you can see.
Now imagine that we take a different Rails app that happens to do the same kind of thing. Some people say, "Oh it would be swell if you could import the data from the first Rails app and render it in yours. You are basically doing the same app, so it should be easy". But it's obviously not -- I wrote my controllers and views completely differently than the other Rails app. My model objects contain completely different data and are structured completely differently. Even worse -- I don't even render things the same way. If I want to support this functionality, I basically need to completely rewrite my rails app to be exactly the same as the previous Rails app.
And this is essentially the problem. If you want to render Word documents the way Word does, you basically have to rewrite Word in your word processor. If you also want to support your format then you have to maintain 2 word processors. If you want to supports some other file formats? It just gets worse and worse.
So what you could do is completely rewrite the rendering engine so that it is more flexible. But the problem is that this is a massive undertaking and nobody will believe you if you tell them that it is necessary. Even worse, there is a surprising amount of variation in rendering. For example, how do you deal with page breaks in footnotes? Most people don't write footnotes that are longer than a page (if you look at my posting history, you might suspect that I'm one of those people, but I digress). However, it's very common in the legal field. There is a specific correct way to break pages in footnotes and Word historically has not done it correctly. They do it differently. This is actually what kept Corel/Word Perfect in business for a long time -- in order to print the document, you would have to use Word Perfect and since the file conversion was crap, you pretty much had to keep it as a Word Perfect file forever.
I will say that while I worked on Word Perfect, Microsoft was very helpful in explaining how their formatter worked. They even regularly sent us bug reports when our import filters had regressions, etc. I've never believed that they intentionally obfuscated the process. It's just a difficult problem.
The former is a more likely scenario