Re: [O] Request: change SVG embedding in exported HTML

[Scott Randby]

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