DOCX compatibility evidence

A DOCX conversion is useful only when its assets travel with it

This evidence note records what the converter preserves, reports, and rejects before a Markdown ZIP is created.

What the DOCX research was designed to answer

A DOCX is a ZIP package containing XML, relationships, and media. Text conversion alone does not prove that image order, file bytes, and relative paths remain usable after the document moves.

The acceptance checks therefore treat the Markdown file, image assets, and coverage report as one result rather than three unrelated downloads.

Structure

Do headings, paragraphs, emphasis, links, lists, and simple tables remain readable in Markdown?

Image order

Do supported images appear between the same surrounding text markers as the source document?

Portable paths

Can the unzipped package move to another folder without breaking assets/ references?

Honest coverage

Are unsupported Word objects reported before the user relies on the package?

Tested claims and current status

The released claims come from OOXML fixtures, integration tests, browser downloads, and a production sample. They describe the current parser rather than every possible Word document.

AreaStatusWhat the evidence shows
Core document structureValidatedHeadings, paragraphs, emphasis, links, lists, and simple tables passed integration checks.
Raster image bytesValidatedPNG assets in the ZIP match real embedded media and are not placeholders or data URLs.
Image source orderValidatedTwo images remain between the same three surrounding text markers used by the fixture.
Relative asset pathsValidatedMarkdown points to stable assets/image-001.png style paths inside the ZIP.
Unsupported Word objectsWarningEquations, VML, charts, SmartArt, legacy objects, and complex text boxes enter the coverage report.
Invalid or unsupported packagesBlockedOld .doc, macro-enabled, encrypted, damaged, or empty packages do not receive a false success result.

What the downloaded ZIP is expected to contain

The result is intentionally a package. Separating the Markdown from the assets directory would break the portability claim that the fixtures verify.

One Markdown file

The document structure and image references are written into a readable .md file.

An assets folder when needed

Supported embedded raster images are copied as real files with stable names.

One coverage report

conversion-report.json records counts and warnings for objects that need review.

Deterministic naming

Repeated conversions of the same input keep the same logical asset naming and order.

What this evidence does not prove

It does not promise visual parity for equations, complex tables, charts, SmartArt, drawing layers, VML, legacy objects, or complex text boxes.

It also does not prove that comments or tracked changes will survive as Markdown review semantics. The Word Review Exporter remains the dedicated workflow for that data.

Continue with the right next step.

Compare the workflow guide with the evidence behind its limits.