Embedding SVG images in HTML changes the height

[snhansen]

Explain the problem.
When rendering a HTML document from a Markdown with an SVG image, the height of the image will differ depending on whether you're using --embed-resources or not.

Simple .md document:

::: {.cell layout-align="center"}
::: {.cell-output-display}
![](fig.svg){fig-align='center' width=672}
:::
:::

Using pandoc test.md -o test.html yields a width of 672 and no height tag.

<div class="cell" data-layout-align="center">
<div class="cell-output-display">
<p><img src="fig.svg" data-fig-align="center" width="672" /></p>
</div>
</div>

Using pandoc test.md -o test.html --embed-resources yields a width of 672 and height of 57.0899pt.

<div class="cell" data-layout-align="center">
<div class="cell-output-display">
<p><svg id="svg_92282ddc95ff99426f05" role="img" data-fig-align="center" width="672" height="57.0899pt" viewBox="-72.00005 -72.00005 57.0899 57.0899">
<defs>

Would be nice if they would produce the same result.

Pandoc version?
pandoc 3.2 on Windows 11

[jgm]

Can you upload fig.svg so I can test? I suspect this is fixed by a recent commit.

[snhansen]

Can you upload fig.svg so I can test? I suspect this is fixed by a recent commit.

Of course. Should be available here although you need to rename it: fig.svg

[jgm]

The version in master gives you this:

<img role="img" src="...9zdmc+" data-fig-align="center" width="672" />

and without --embed-resources, similarly but without the data uri.

If you add the .inline-svg class to the attributes, then you get the output you saw above, with an inline svg and calculated height attribute. Why do we add the calculated height for an inline svg? I can't remember, but I think there's a reason. You can look at #8965, #8969 for background.

Anyway I think the new behavior should suit you, so perhaps this can be closed?

[snhansen]

Anyway I think the new behavior should suit you, so perhaps this can be closed?

I just checked with the Github version and it does indeed seem to be resolved there. So I'll go ahead and close it. Sorry for opening an issue that was already resolved.