Avatar for Username

搜索 | 用户支持

防范以用户支持为名的诈骗。我们绝对不会要求您拨打电话或发送短信，及提供任何个人信息。请使用“举报滥用”选项报告涉及违规的行为。

详细了解

话题已存档。 如果需要帮助请提出新问题。

Printing SVG files

  • 2 个回答
  • 1 人有此问题
  • 1 次查看
  • 最后回复者为 Laurent Pugin

Laurent Pugin
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.
已附加屏幕截图

被采纳的解决方案

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.

定位到答案原位置 👍 1

所有回复 (2)

jscher2000 - Support Volunteer
jscher2000 - Support Volunteer
  • Top 25 Contributor
more options

选择的解决方案

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.

Laurent Pugin
Laurent Pugin 提问者
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!