Search Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

Printing SVG files

  • 2 பதிலளிப்புகள்
  • 1 இந்த பிரச்சனை உள்ளது
  • 71 views
  • Last reply by Laurent Pugin

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.
Attached screenshots

தீர்வு தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டது

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

All Replies (2)

தீர்வு தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்பட்டது

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.

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!