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 ŋuɖoɖowo
  • 1 masɔmasɔ sia le esi
  • 55 views
  • Nuɖoɖo mlɔetɔ 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.
Screen ƒe photowo kpe ɖe eŋu

Ŋuɖoɖo si wotia

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.

Xle ŋuɖoɖo sia le goya me 👍 1

All Replies (2)

more options

Ɖɔɖɔɖo si wotia

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!