I emailed an Inkscape SVG file to a commercial printer to print on a big banner. It's a crossword grid, plus a lot of text boxes. When he opened it in Adobe Illustrator, he only got the crossword grid, not the text boxes.

I saved it again, all on one layer, grouped all the objects into a single object and sent it to him. That didn't help, he still just got the grid.

I'm at a loss as to what is wrong, and he doesn't want to spend time working on it, though he said I could come in and work on his spare computer.

I'm wondering whether AI doesn't recognize the text items? If so, is there a way to convert text to objects? or am I way off base?

Object to path works on text, will convert it all to normal lines with fills.

Have you tried converting all text to path and then saving it? Also, try saving as generic svg rather than inkscape svg.

It sounds like you've used flowed text, which doesn't show up in other programs (because Inkscape does it incorrectly). Converting to ordinary text (Convert to Text, on the Text menu), would fix that. But converting to paths (Object to Path, on the Path menu), as other have suggested, is probably safer (as it avoids any font issues).

In any case, you should check the SVG file in a different SVG viewer (e.g., Batik, or the Adobe SVG Viewer, or even just Firefox) before sending it to the printer. That way you can be reasonably sure that it's correct.

sas wrote: (because Inkscape does it incorrectly)

There is no correct way, as its not in an issued spec yet.
The SVG working group changed how they want to do it, we'd implemented it the first way before they changed their minds, so we're holding fire on changing it until its actually an issued spec.

I would also make sure I'm sending the plain SVG format, and not the Inkscape SVG

Thanks everybody. I like those ideas (convert to path, and save as regular SVG).

I went over to my friend's print shop and downloaded InkScape onto one of his computers from the internet, then opened the file I had sent him and saved it as a postscript file, and illustrator was able to open that and print it properly. So there's yet a third idea!

He had heard good things about InkScape (another customer - less obsessive and persistent than myself - had brought in an Inkscape file that he couldn't print) so now, he and his assistant know that there's a workaround. They may start suggesting to their customers who want to do vector graphics that they can get Inkscape instead of Illustrator.

Just curious - why is Inkscape FREE? I mean, what's their business model?

There is no business model, its not about money.

Serendipity wrote:I went over to my friend's print shop and downloaded InkScape onto one of his computers from the internet, then opened the file I had sent him and saved it as a postscript file, and illustrator was able to open that and print it properly. So there's yet a third idea!

A better one would be to use PDF instead of PS. If it displays properly in Acrobat Reader than you can be confident it will print properly. Your printer should accept PDF files.

Simarilius wrote:

sas wrote: (because Inkscape does it incorrectly)

There is no correct way,

Any way that conforms to the SVG specification and gives the desired result is correct. The current incorrect method can be slightly modified to make it correct - see Bulia's description of how this can be done.

as its not in an issued spec yet.

True, but that's not necessary in order to do it in a correct way. Doing it the way Bulia describes, the text will remain flowed as far as Inkscape is concerned, but all conforming SVG viewers will still render it correctly. If it had been done this way from the start, there would never have been any problem.

The SVG working group changed how they want to do it, we'd implemented it the first way before they changed their minds, so we're holding fire on changing it until its actually an issued spec.

The new method (textArea) shouldn't be implemented until the spec is finalized, but there's no reason to delay fixing the current implementation. I'm hoping to do it for 0.47 if I get the time.

Simarilius wrote:There is no business model, its not about money.

It's about something far more sinister than that!!

SureWhyNot wrote:

Simarilius wrote:There is no business model, its not about money.

It's about something far more sinister than that!!

yeah, cookies

sas wrote:

Simarilius wrote:

sas wrote: (because Inkscape does it incorrectly)

There is no correct way,

Any way that conforms to the SVG specification and gives the desired result is correct. The current incorrect method can be slightly modified to make it correct - see Bulia's description of how this can be done.

When i say correct, I mean correct way to represent flowed text as flowed text, not as a hack around the issue. Yeah we should stick it in a namespace and add a normal text object, but that isnt actually flowed text then is it? Would be far better if the W3C guys could issue a spec that defined it so we could just do it right one way without any workarounds...
As for if it had been done that way from the start, why would we have done that? we were implementing a 1.2 feature, so we did it how the draft spec said it should be done.

Simarilius wrote:As for if it had been done that way from the start, why would we have done that?

To ensure that the SVG files produced by Inkscape were conforming.

sas wrote:

Simarilius wrote:As for if it had been done that way from the start, why would we have done that?

To ensure that the SVG files produced by Inkscape were conforming.

Yeah, but my point is why code an ugly hack to make it conform to the old spec when the feature you were coding was meant to be in the new one?
If they hadnt changed the spec on us none of this would be an issue...

Simarilius wrote:If they hadnt changed the spec on us none of this would be an issue...

But my point is that it wasn't a spec, it was just a working draft, and therefore subject to change.