On 07/24/2016 12:50 PM, Christian Moe wrote: > > I disagree. A switch to <img> for SVG export (1) is not necessary for > scaling, and (2) would disable other useful features that are presently > available out of the box. > > (1) It *is* a bit easier to scale SVG with <img> in HTML. But you *can* > scale SVG with <object> by putting the <object> in a container <div> and > scaling the container width and height. > > This is actually simple with Org, which natively wraps the <object> in a > <div class="figure"> tag, and passes any attributes to the latter. To > scale an arbitrary image.svg e.g. to 100px width, try: > > #+attr_html: :width 100px > [[path/to/image.svg]]
It has been awhile since I tried to scale an SVG image using Org markup, but I recall trying what you suggest and it didn't work. I will try again when I have some time and report the results to this list. > > Alternatively, you can use #+attr_html to set an id on the figure <div>, > and style it with CSS. > > (2) You can also do other things with <object> that you cannot with > <img>, like manipulating the SVG with Javascript and styling it with an > external stylesheet (linked from the SVG, not the web page). > > Raw SVG in the exported HTML is a third option that is very plain-texty > and supports all the mentioned features, but it tends to bloat files, > and doesn't encourage caching and re-using of an image across web pages. > > To sum up, <img> makes the most common task simpler (scaling the > graphic), but at the cost of features such as interactive animated > graphics, which are possible with <object> or SVG islands. I do remember a discussion in the past about this issue. Scott
