חיפוש בתמיכה

יש להימנע מהונאות תמיכה. לעולם לא נבקש ממך להתקשר או לשלוח הודעת טקסט למספר טלפון או לשתף מידע אישי. נא לדווח על כל פעילות חשודה באמצעות באפשרות ״דיווח על שימוש לרעה״.

מידע נוסף

Printing SVG files

  • 2 תגובות
  • 1 has this problem
  • 1 view
  • תגובה אחרונה מאת Laurent Pugin

more options

I am having problems when printing SVG files. They use symbols defines as <defs>

     <symbol id="E050-0000001930888939" viewBox="0 0 1000 1000" overflow="inherit"/>

</defs>

And included with <g id="clef-0000000126308208" class="clef">

      <use xlink:href="#E050-0000001930888939" x="90" y="2109" height="720px" width="720px" />

</g>

Example SVG file

It shows perfectly well on the screen and prints properly with other browsers (Chrome, Safari). With Firefox, it shows properly on the screen but not when printing.

I am having problems when printing SVG files. They use symbols defines as <defs> <symbol id="E050-0000001930888939" viewBox="0 0 1000 1000" overflow="inherit"/> </defs> And included with <g id="clef-0000000126308208" class="clef"> <use xlink:href="#E050-0000001930888939" x="90" y="2109" height="720px" width="720px" /> </g> [https://gist.github.com/lpugin/92ac936ab3b730044a2e2b4040725756#file-test-file-firefox-svg Example SVG file] It shows perfectly well on the screen and prints properly with other browsers (Chrome, Safari). With Firefox, it shows properly on the screen but not when printing.
צילומי מסך מצורפים

פתרון נבחר

If you use the "Raw" view on Github, does that one print cleanly? Seems fine to me in a quick look in Firefox 90.

Note: Firefox 90 has some printing changes that cause other problems, so please don't rush to update.

Read this answer in context 👍 1

כל התגובות (2)

more options

פתרון נבחר

If you use the "Raw" view on Github, does that one print cleanly? Seems fine to me in a quick look in Firefox 90.

Note: Firefox 90 has some printing changes that cause other problems, so please don't rush to update.

more options

Yes, it prints cleanly with Firefox 90. So it seems that it was an issue with Firefox 89 - it did appear about a month ago, so I think 88 was still fine. Thanks for looking at it!