Christian Moe <m...@christianmoe.com> writes: > 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.
The current version of Org wraps the SVG image in a <div> of class figure, but at least setting the width of this class in a CSS produces no scaling effect (tested with Chrome and Safari). > 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]] > > Alternatively, you can use #+attr_html to set an id on the figure > <div>, and style it with CSS. But if you need to set an id, then you will also have to do scaling on a file-by-file basis. Or? If this is so, then scaling would be a _lot_ easier using <img>. Do we need to / could we add an option to HTML export? Either export all SVG files with <object> or <img>. Jarmo