Mozilla サポートの検索

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.

詳しく学ぶ

このスレッドはアーカイブに保管されました。 必要であれば新たに質問してください。

Printing SVG files

  • 2 件の返信
  • 1 人がこの問題に困っています
  • 71 回表示
  • 最後の返信者: 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.
添付されたスクリーンショット

選ばれた解決策

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.

この回答をすべて読む 👍 1

すべての返信 (2)

more options

選ばれた解決策

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!