(In reply to Marco Castelluccio [:marco] from comment #10) > This was fixed by bug 1774631. That bug was about "save as PDF", but my problem is more generic, since I'm facing it when printing using an actual hardware printer. I attached samples as PDF's because at it didn't seem to matter at the time, as both the hardware printer and the pdf printer produced comparably bad result. So, at least for the case of hardware printers, this but doesn't seem fixed. I had to print a shipping label from a PDF file just now, and the pages produced when printing it from Firefox 117 were of considerably worse quality than those produced when printing the same file using Gnome's own document viewer. Firefox still seemed to print the document after rasterizing it first, which caused general blurriness and even caused a printed PDF417 barcode become unreadable. The upstream pdf.js issue (2750) isn't even closed, so I don't think this can be marked as a duplicate of a fixed bug.
Bug 1274502 Comment 11 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(In reply to Marco Castelluccio [:marco] from comment #10) > This was fixed by bug 1774631. That bug was about "save as PDF", but my problem is more generic, since I'm facing it when printing using an actual hardware printer. I attached samples as PDF's because it didn't seem to matter at the time, as both the hardware printer and the pdf printer produced comparably bad result. So, at least for the case of hardware printers, this but doesn't seem fixed. I had to print a shipping label from a PDF file just now, and the pages produced when printing it from Firefox 117 were of considerably worse quality than those produced when printing the same file using Gnome's own document viewer. Firefox still seemed to print the document after rasterizing it first, which caused general blurriness and even caused a printed PDF417 barcode become unreadable. The upstream pdf.js issue (2750) isn't even closed, so I don't think this can be marked as a duplicate of a fixed bug.