Remix.run Logo
Ask HN: What is nowadays (opensource) way of converting HTML to PDF?
155 points by hhthrowaway1230 4 days ago | 149 comments

I'm using wkhtmltopdf but it is painful to work with? what are other people using nowadays? i.e canva or other tools?

pabs3 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Just print to PDF in a browser, or automate that using a browser automation tool. For a non-browser-based open source solution, WeasyPrint.

https://weasyprint.org/

For a proprietary solution, try Prince XML:

https://www.princexml.com/

grounder a day ago | parent | next [-]

WeasyPrint works really well for me. It can support all of the languages and fonts I need. I run it on AWS Lambda and in Docker as a web service.

I previously used WKHTMLTOPDF, but it hasn't been supported for years and doesn't support the latest CSS, etc. It does support JS if you need it, but I'd probably look at headless Chromium or another solution for JS if needed.

Edit: Previous post with some good discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26578826

stuaxo a day ago | parent [-]

This is my experience and recommendation too.

rossdavidh a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

+1 to weasyprint; I have used weasyprint with a django production system for a few years now, and it works well enough that I never have to think about it. I'm not doing anything fancy, though, but for me it has worked well.

Semaphor 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll join the choir. We use weasyprint for ebooks and invoices and it's a joy to use. Massively new support for features over the last few years (partially thanks to some monetary sponsorships), it started pretty bare bones, and is now close to commercial solutions.

The maintainers are also very responsive, and helpful.

Amazing project

thenews a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://stirlingpdf.io also uses weasyprint !!

alsetmusic 17 hours ago | parent [-]

There was a critical book that I read two years ago that is only available online. The web presentation is full of images of maps, artifacts, etc to help contextualize the content. No PDF converter tool has ever been up to the job of just extracting the text until this one. Thank you!

jiehong a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most website do not have a print CSS, so it doesn’t print that nicely in PDF.

But, I upvote weasyprint for that instead.

hulitu 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> Most website do not have a print CSS, so it doesn’t print that nicely in PDF.

Can't they just render the screen content in a pdf ? Seems easy for other programs to do this.

Wilduck 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Viewport size and deciding where to paginate makes a naive approach to this surprisingly difficult. That being said, if you can control the css / html, you can often solve these problems with a short media query and some hints at where to break pages (e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/break-after).

sureglymop a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Prince XML looks nice but what about creating a PDF directly from a website? This often adds some problems, for example links still pointing to other pages on the web. But in my experience printing to PDF is often not good enough.

chinathrow a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, I did that for a recent small program. The @media print media query is powerful enough for most of the stuff I wanted to format nicely. Even page breaks are possible.

rcarmo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

These two are the only right answers if you want a reliable, reproducible, relatively low resource experience. Running a browser engine has always been hard to maintain in the long run for me.

bluebarbet a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Seconded. In my eccentric workflow, I use Weasyprint to convert HTML emails to more portable PDFs. A surprisingly successful experiment.

sodimel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

+1 - Weasyprint is an excellent tool to make pdf from html content, and we're using it at work (with django) to export various documents.

jmyeet a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ve had excellent experience with Prince XML and poor experience with everything else I’ve tried. Prince is fast, robust and reliable.

Yes it costs money. So does developer time.

angst_ridden a day ago | parent [-]

Agreed. Prince also has a lot of good features for headers, footers, page numbering, etc, that make it very powerful.

hulitu 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Just print to PDF in a browser

I tried yesterday. With compliments to the moms of SWE who coded the functionality in firefox. Aparently puting the screen on a pdf page is an insurmontable task in 2025. (20 years ago was still doable). I had to make a screenshot and process the picture to print it.

kappadi3 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Puppeteer and Playwright are the main open-source options nowadays, both solid for HTML → PDF once your print CSS is sorted. Don’t forget proper page breaks (break-before/after/inside) — e.g. break-after: page works in Chromium, while always doesn’t. For trickier pagination you can look at Paged.js, and I’d test layouts in Chrome/Edge before automating.

Shameless plug: I run yakpdf.com, a hosted Puppeteer-based service if you want to avoid self-hosting. https://rapidapi.com/yakpdf-yakpdf/api/yakpdf

johnh-hn a day ago | parent | next [-]

Seconded. I went with C# + Playwright. I tried iTextSharp, iText, PDFSharp, and wkhtmltopdf, but they all had limitations. I had good results with Playwright in minutes, outside of tweaking the CSS like you mention.

I documented the process here[0] if anyone needs examples of the CSS and loading web fonts. Apologies for the article being long-winded – it was the first one I published.

[0] https://johnh.co/blog/creating-pdfs-from-html-using-csharp

benoau a day ago | parent [-]

Thirded, you can build this straight into your backend or into a microservice very easily.

You can also easily generate screenshots if that's more suitable than PDFs.

You can also easily use this to do stuff like jam a set of images into a HTML table and PDF or screenshot them in that format.

ChuckMcM a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You made me realize that tractor feed roll paper would be really great for printed web pages, no page breaks! Kinda like reading scrolls of yore.

dredmorbius 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Shortcutting much of the discussion here (what are you goals / why would you do that / don't use format X): a key problem is that neither HTML (as published on today's Web) nor PDF are reliable as canonical document formats. Tagged-markup such as Markdown (or otherlightweight markup languages) or LaTeX (or other heavy markup languages) are far more robust. Markdown has its variants, but all are pretty simple and easy to produce. LaTeX is slightly more complex, but remains quite straightforward for simple works.

Once you've got an appropriate canonical version in any of these options, you have an embarassment of riches to convert to any given document format (what I call endpoints) you'd care for: PDF, HTML, RTF, DOCX, or many, many others. I generally reach for Pandoc first, which itself, yes, of course, often relies on additional tools/libraries to parse or generate endpoints, but is quite versatile.

You can simplify the intake of HTML by stripping out cruft. Readability, Beautiful Soup, or other HTML filtering tools can target the core content and metadata you most likely want.

Otherwise, think through what you're doing and why to more narrowly define your goals and tools. E.g., if you want a faithful printed representation of a mainstream-browser-rendered page (that is, Google Chrome), you'd probably do best to use its print-to-PDF options (mentioned several times here). If you want to extract core text, filtering out much of today's WWW cruft will be a high priority.

Aachen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Please don't turn nice formats into a format that's similar to screenshots of text. Pandoc has an option to pack all images and styles needed to render the page into one html file:

    pandoc --self-contained input.html -o output.html
crazygringo a day ago | parent | next [-]

Or, please do?

I use PDF's so I can send them to my iPad to read offline, highlight them, annotate them, and then send them back to my filesystem with highlights and annotations intact.

I sure can't do that with any "nice formats" like HTML or TXT or EPUB or MOBI.

nine_k a day ago | parent | next [-]

PDF is literally digital paper. HTML has logical structure, it can adapt to different displays, etc.

Sometimes you want one, sometimes, the other.

ratelimitsteve a day ago | parent | next [-]

>Sometimes you want one, sometimes, the other.

This is the part that the top commenter missed. Instead they decided that one format is "nice" and the other, by implication, isn't. I find PDFs a lot easier to keep organized en masse, I like that I can use them on any of my devices and it's easy for me to use them when I'm doing in-depth reading such as an ebook. Doubly so because my ereader also does text to speech and syncs across devices so I can read on my tablet while I'm on the exercise bike and then switch to listening to the same book on my phone with minimal seams and without losing my place. It is, in a word, nice.

Aachen 11 hours ago | parent [-]

None of that sounds related to the format?

- A text to speech engine should work better with the original html structure where it sees bold tags, headings, and full sentences ra-

ther than broken-off ones

- Keeping PDFs organised, how would that differ from keeping any other filetype organised? I don't understand what difference you, "by implication", attribute to a file ending in .html or .pdf for being able to handle them en masse. If anything, searching across them will be vastly easier for software (self-written or third-party) and more reliable because it's all plain text

- Text and audio rendering syncing, I have no experience with but that doesn't sound like it ought to fundamentally work for a display format and not for the source text format. Of course, the software has to have support for this format (and otherwise it's trivial to pdfify a html but vice versa is nearly impossible)

ratelimitsteve 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>and full sentences ra- > >ther than broken-off ones

This and trying to read the header/footer are the most annoying parts of pdf to audio apps. At least some apps will let you set a margin outside of which text is ignored, so every page doesn't start with the book title, author's name and chapter title and end with the page number.

user3939382 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

HTML could do everything PDF does in theory but it doesn’t in practice because the tooling doesn’t exist.

crazygringo 9 hours ago | parent [-]

My exercise bike can play Doom on its display in theory.

Theory doesn't matter here, tooling and standards do. And PDF doesn't just have the tooling for highlighting and annotations, it has the standards for them so that tools support them in an interoperable way. A highlight made with one tool can be removed with another, without altering the underlying content.

ratelimitsteve 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I would love an exercise bike that runs doom. Maybe link my movement speed in-game to how fast I pedal, with a joystick on one of the handlebars to move and a couple buttons on the other one to shoot and reload. So far every exercise bike game is just bike race, which I'll admit is a close fit for the existing hardware and probably the first idea I'd have too but it gets boring after a while.

Towaway69 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Had the same idea - not with doom - but with a Quest 3D and watching videos of me riding in the summer. First make a film using an 3D camera (something like a Insta360) and then view that on the Quest in winter while riding exercise bike.

Video speed would sync to the exercise bike speed, giving a feeling of reality.

The core problem is that sweating inside a Quest isn't a good idea ...

ratelimitsteve 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I did thrill of the fight a lot back during the pandemic. sweating in a quest isn't ideal, but it's not unmanageable for brief periods of time (15-30 minutes). The only real problem is that the lenses can get sweaty or foggy and all of a sudden I go from punching faces and dodging fists to punching at blurs and failing to dodge other blurs.

Maybe instead of a quest you just display video to a screen? When I was using a hotel fitness center they had a peloton and that seems to be something you can do with those. It was a couple years back and I recall the video being loosely if at all tied to the speed you pedal at, but it was more fun than just looking at a wall while I pretend to go somewhere.

ratelimitsteve 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

maybe html can do all of these and it will only cost me the time it takes to build the app, but right now PDF does all of those things for me, here today in my pocket, for $15. Which is nice.

I'd love to see a text to speech engine that pronounces formatting but I think it might be more complicated than learning to pronounce something boldly. Am I yelling? Am I keeping my voice low but adding intensity? Can you automate answering that question in a way that's mostly correct most of the time? If something is in italics am I whispering, stage whispering, emphasizing or merely saying the title of an existing work out loud? It's a fundamental abuse of a text formatting engine to try to use it for speech formatting, you either have to use the existing tags for things they were never intended for or you have to start adding tags like <slywhisper> and <scream emotion="angry"> vs <scream emotion="excited">. That being said, an html-independent form of emotional text annotation might actually be a good idea as the inevitability of synthesized human voices being a part of our daily lives takes hold.

I find PDFs easier to organize than HTML because HTML is any number of files referencing each other across a directory structure that can have any size or shape, and a PDF is a single file. If I'm searching my library for Bob Wilson, I want his books to show up and I want them to have his picture in them if that's how the book was published but I don't want Bob_Wilson.jpeg to show up as a result. I could automate print to PDF from html or use the tool someone else posted in order to condense my saved HTMLs to single files but that's more processing time and effort in order to get what I already have from a PDF

Syncing position across HTML files may be doable, but syncing position across PDFs is done. You're absolutely right that that has nothing to do with the format but the (implied) question I was answering when I brought it up was why I would sometimes want one and other times want the other. That's why.

Finally, and probably the only one that really matters inasmuch as all the other reasons can be coded around but this one cant: the places I get documents distribute them in PDF, mobi and epub but almost never in HTML

Aachen 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When do want the digital paper when you can have the more flexible one?

jerjerjer 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When I want it to be displayed in the exact same way everywhere.

crazygringo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you not read my reply to your root comment? I already answered this for you.

Each one has things the other can't do. Neither is universally more flexible.

mr_mitm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You could, though. What you are describing are features of an editor, not a file format. I can imagine a browser addon performing the same tasks.

circuit10 a day ago | parent | next [-]

But in this case the flexibility of HTML is a negative because any layout shift would mess up the positions of the annotations, so fixing the layout (and making sure it’s non-interactive) is helpful here

whenc a day ago | parent | prev [-]

PDF annotations sit within the file.

mr_mitm a day ago | parent [-]

I know, even though that depends on the editor. Okular for example places them in an extra file, last I checked. That's not unique to PDFs. HTML files are modifiable. There is nothing preventing an editor to put annotations in it as well.

crazygringo a day ago | parent [-]

PDF is designed for annotations in the file format. You annotate in one editor, you can change the annotations in another. You can always distinguish between original content and annotations. I see no indication that Okular stores highlights or annotations in a separate file, that would be bizarre.

There is no mechanism for annotations in HTML or the other formats I listed. An editor would just be editing the original content in its own non-standardized, non-portable way, which is not desirable for a number of reasons.

So when you say:

> What you are describing are features of an editor, not a file format.

That is incorrect. It is an intentionally designed and standardized feature of the file format.

mr_mitm a day ago | parent | next [-]

It definitely used to be bizarre then:

https://superuser.com/questions/333378/where-does-okular-sto...

ratelimitsteve a day ago | parent [-]

turns out the default for okular is to save to an external file but there's a setting that can be changed to use the format correctly and store annotations within the file, which is universally compatible with other PDF readers. You can't really blame the format for someone using it wrong on purpose, and if you can then I'll just abuse HTML and the fact that I use it wrong will be evidence that it is, in itself, wrong

cxr a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The W3C standardized HTML annotations years ago. There's a difference between a standard not existing versus people pretending it doesn't exist because it's not implemented by Chrome.

crazygringo 19 hours ago | parent [-]

That's different. Those are a data structure defining annotations that are meant to be stored externally. They're not part of an HTML file like PDF annotations are. They're meant more for live collaborative commenting within a shared online space, not for making private portable annotations like PDF does.

And it's not a Chrome thing. I don't think any browsers support it, do they? It's not really clear there's a need for it, when collaborative editors already handle document annotations in their own ways.

cxr 8 hours ago | parent [-]

So is there a need for it or isn't there?

> That's different. Those are a data structure defining annotations that are meant to be stored externally.

The protocol is a separate standard.

The format is JSON-LD. Putting JSON-LD into HTML isn't a question mark. (There's info at W3C.org about how to do that, too. Not that it's necessary. You can guess what it says.)

jasode 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fyi... the preferred new syntax since 2022 is:

  --embed-resources --standalone.
https://github.com/rstudio/rmarkdown/issues/2382

https://pandoc.org/MANUAL.html#:~:text=Deprecated%20synonym%...

Aachen 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I noticed when trying it out for this comment, but then looked around when it was introduced and it seems recent (as in, an LTS distribution won't have it). Someone on stackoverflow said they get "unknown option --embed-resources". The old option will work for everyone and is also simpler, one instead of two parameters. People whose client supports the new option will see the upgrade suggestion when they run this. In the end I saw mainly downsides to mentioning the new rather than the old way

agedclock a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pandoc would be my preferred tool. It is excellent at converting between other formats as well.

kelnos a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Please don't turn nice formats into a format that's similar to screenshots of text

Converting HTML to PDF shouldn't result in an image wrapped in a PDF. Text will be preserved as text in the final PDF. (Unless the converter is garbage, of course.)

Aachen 21 hours ago | parent [-]

If you've ever copied text out of a PDF, you'll know it's not the original text anymore. Besides ligatures, you get broken sentences with extra hyphens inserted in wrong places (that were word/line breaks in the PDF-rendered version), if it'll properly let you select more than a few words at all. It works like "put these couple words at position x,y" and not (html's) semantic "here comes a heading" tag that helps people accessibly read your text, and if you're not suffering from any impairment or mobile devices with narrower screens than this particular render was designed for, it also lets you work with the document more easily. It's like you remove all HTML and keep only the CSS: all definitions of what's a section, sentence, emphasis, or caption are gone

I didn't mean literally an image, hence saying image-like. You get similar limitations to when using OCR, which seems very image-like to me

layer8 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

HTML+CSS+media files isn’t a nice format, and much less portable through time and space than PDF.

Aachen 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Not sure if I'm misreading your comment, but it's not plural files with all those formats separately

That's what the "self contained" option does: turn it into one nice file. Makes no difference if you copy example.pdf or example.html when both contain all images and styles (except one of them also contains the original semantic text)

TylerE a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Being (not so easily) edited is often a feature, not a bug.

craftkiller a day ago | parent | next [-]

If that is your goal, you should be cryptographically signing your documents with your PGP key. That way you actually have assurance the document has not been modified rather than just hoping someone hasn't modified the document. Additionally, PGP can sign anything so you are open to use whatever format you want.

Aachen 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

May I recommend .html in that case? You can embed scripts that control who can run it, having it fetch a decryption token from a server or require a decryption password with a safe password hashing algorithm of your choice

It's much more versatile than PDF and, if the algorithm decides the user is allowed to read the document, then the user gets to make use of all of the document's options like a better search function (PDF can't find words that are bro-

ken across lines because that information of what's a word is gone, transformed into coordinates of what characters need to go where). It's also much more readable on different screen sizes, as the user can resize the window to whatever is comfortable on a 27" screen, or fits on their pocket e-reader. You can even draw it on a canvas if you want to prevent people from extracting the decrypted strings (though it's evil, you have that option). There's only benefits!

PDF is the lazy way to half-ass a read-only document while screwing, ahem, making anyone using a mobile phone zoom, pan, and squint. Thankfully, phones are falling out of fash— wait, scratch that, I just heard text reflow is more relevant than ever as phone use continues to soar

ryandrake a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this really that much of a motivation in 2025? Maybe in 2000 you could publish a PDF with the assurance that only the people who paid for Acrobat would be able to edit it, but today, there are a lot of accessible ways to edit PDFs, I don't think I'd choose PDF if I for whatever reason wanted to limit others from editing.

guywithahat a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I was thinking this too, PDF's exist so people don't mess with the document. That said, it's still a clever feature, and pandoc can convert html into a pdf as well with a conversion engine. That said, I suspect it'll fail on anything sufficiently complex

pandoc input.html -o output.pdf --pdf-engine=<your engine>

moralestapia a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Please don't police what other people do.

Aachen 21 hours ago | parent [-]

If I were police, I could still not enforce that this is what they run until it's law. They're free to choose this option if they like the merits

Snawoot a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

chrome --headless --disable-gpu --print-to-pdf https://example.com

piptastic a day ago | parent | next [-]

same: google-chrome --headless --disable-gpu --no-pdf-header-footer --hide-scrollbars --print-to-pdf-margins="0,0,0,0" --print-to-pdf --window-size=1280,720 https://example.com

ended up using headless chrome specifically to make sure javascript things rendered properly

HPsquared a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can Chromium do this?

Edit: it appears so- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15131840

nine_k a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, routinely works for me.

mmphosis a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Can Firefox do this?

with an elaborate script that relies on xdotool

andrehacker a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, kind of...

/path/to/firefox --window-size 1700 --headless -screenshot myfile.png file://myfile.html

Easy, right ?

Used this for many years... but beware:

- caveat 1: this is (or was) a more or less undocumented function and a few years ago it just disappeared only to come back in a later release.

- caveat 2: even though you can convert local files it does require internet access as any references to icons, style sheets, fonts and tracker pixels cause Firefox to attempt to retrieve them without any (sensible) timeout. So, running this on a server without internet access will make the process hang forever.

jlokier a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Last time I explored this, Firefox rendered thin lines in subtly bordered tables as thick lines, so I had to use Chromium. But back then Chrome did worse at pagination than Firefox.

So I used Firefox for multi-page documents and Chromium for single-page invoices.

I spent a lot of time with different versions of both browsers, and numerous quirks made a very unpleasant experience.

Eventually I settled on Chromium (Ungoogled), which I use nowadays for invoices.

nine_k a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Why, Firefox has a headless mode. It can't just print a document via a simple CLI command, you have to go for Selenium (or maybe Playwright, I did not try it in that capacity). Foxdriver would work, but its development ceased.

lizimo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If generating PDF dynamically is what you really care about, consider Typst. https://typst.app/ We use it in production to generate reports, and it is amazing.

leephillips a day ago | parent [-]

See https://lwn.net/Articles/1037577/ for a recent summary of what you can do with Typst.

RiverCrochet a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you don't really need the PDF but just want to archive pages, SingleFile is better. It'll capture the entire page to a single HTML file and I find this is better than the PDF if I don't want to print it. It's a browser extension, but there's also a command line version (https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/single-file-cli) that uses Chrome or Chromium's headless mode.

trollbridge a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wrote a solution in 2010 that used headless Firefox with some plugins to generate a PDF and then had the graphic designer write print CSSes. It was driven by Perl and was a convenient way for non-programmers to design forms.

Unfortunately, that server and software stack is still around and still in production.

znpy a day ago | parent [-]

> Unfortunately, that server and software stack is still around and still in production.

that means you did a good job.

Dwedit a day ago | parent [-]

2010-era Firefox is probably plagued by security holes.

detaro a day ago | parent [-]

If your print-file generation code tries to exploit the headless browser you use to turn its outputs into PDF something has gone very wrong already.

thangalin a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this an xy problem? If you have the original document (in Markdown), one possibility would be to use my software, KeenWrite[1], to convert Markdown to XHTML then typeset XHTML to PDF via ConTeXt. See the user manual[2] for an example of a Markdown document typeset in this fashion, along with usage instructions.

If you only have HTML to work with, you can also use Flying Saucer[3], which is what KeenWrite uses to preview Markdown documents when rendered as HTML. Flying Saucer uses an open-source version of iText[4] to produce PDF documents (from HTML source docs).

Another possibility is to use pandoc and LaTeX.

[1]: https://keenwrite.com/

[2]: https://keenwrite.com/docs/user-manual.pdf

[3]: https://github.com/flyingsaucerproject/flyingsaucer

[4]: https://itextpdf.com/

delduca a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://gotenberg.dev

NanoWar 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We use this in production and it's very stable. It also supports background gradients which we wanted to use so badly :-) Can recommend

roxolotl a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Would second this. I’ve used it in production to generate tens of thousands of PDFs a day. It just works. Run the docker container throw html and variables at it and get PDFs back.

dvcoolarun 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I built this: https://github.com/dvcoolarun/web2pdf — a CLI tool for converting web pages to PDFs, recently open-sourced after adding several new features. (Might be useful!)

Not related to the thread, but if anyone is looking to hire a developer or knows of opportunities, I was recently let go and am actively searching. Any leads or feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Sample PDF: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n7M1TKOptSsYiibrbvV_Yojx53T...

nicoburns a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://github.com/plutoprint/plutobook was a recent Show HN and looks excellent

ineedasername a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ghostscript. Depending on specific needs it may be much more turnkey than Pandoc, which isn’t actually doing much directly with things other than intermediating, iiuc. (LaTex) does the heavy lifting.

Ghost script is working with postscript natively and will likely manage idiosyncrasies of web content better. It’s got a decent ecosystem, command line, you can find gui’s if that’s your thing (no judgement, your lifestyle is none of my business).

Many other good tools mentioned here as well, but if your asking because you need more, or fine grained (near infinite) control over the pdf composition, there’s nothing OSS I can think of that approaches its capabilities.

https://ghostscript.com/

mimi_007 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, wkhtmltopdf can be a pain, especially with modern CSS/JS-heavy pages. One option you could try is PDFBolt - you can design a template in HTML/CSS once, then simply pass the JSON data and template ID. It handles dynamic content and modern layouts without all the quirks of wkhtmltopdf. You can also convert HTML content or URLs to PDFs.

juice_bus a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have Chromium shoved into an AWS Lambda Layer, when we need HTML to PDF conversion we shove it off onto that. It loads the HTML into Chromium then "prints" it to PDF.

Animats a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Print to PDF in the browser?

My main use for that is printing appointment information, tickets, and product listings. The product listings are useful when trying to find in a store something that's supposedly available and in stock. Usually, only the first page is useful. There will be additional useless pages of irrelevant items, deals, and ads.

Koffiepoeder a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you want lots of differently styled templates, template management and editing/styling capabilites in word or excel (ie. you can just ask your customer/employer/.. to make an example document), I can really recommend Carbone [0]. I've been a happy customer for a few years now. Extra advantage is also that it also offers you excel outout generation as well, which is also often a requirement in applications. They have a SaaS offering as well if you'd like. They are open source though, so you can easily run a docker container!

[0]: https://carbone.io/

stared 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What's your goal?

Print it? Archivize it? Send it via email? Read it on another device (which)?

Depending on that, there are different solutions and trade-offs. For example on how to deal with pagination.

Towaway69 7 hours ago | parent [-]

OP wants to archive 5k a month --> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45440073

freeopinion a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Clearly,a million people have tried to find an answer for this question. I've tried. At least one of my attempts was an XY problem. I was converting generated HTML that would never see a browser. It was never intended to see a browser. The people generating it were very good at HTML/CSS/JS, but didn't know how to produce the same content outside HTML.

mightjustwork 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://gotenberg.dev/ ...has been working well for me for the last few years. It's a headless instance of Google Chrome with a golang wrapper. Runs well in Docker or a cloud instance.

zikani_03 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Seconding.. gotenberg has been solid for us. We also make use of it's convert from Word to PDF feature and it's been really solid.

hansonkd a day ago | parent | prev [-]

gotenberg is really rock solid for us. Easy to deploy as a docker container to any infrastructure.

hhthrowaway1230 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

5k pdfs a month for archival purposes, must be pdf, customers demand this

kragen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I just wrote a quick HTML renderer in Python with ReportLab: https://GitHub.com/kragen/dercuano/blob/master/genpdf.py

It only handles like 5% of HTML, but it's the 5% I was using.

I've also had success producing PDFs with GhostScript from a PostScript file. PostScript is really easy to write, almost like SVG.

haft a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A reverse of this question; what is the best way to convert pdf to html? We are required by accessibility law to make our PDFs WCAG compliant however it would be easier to convert these to HTML.

dredmorbius 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This reduces to parsing PDFs, which is an unsolved hard problem.

At low volumes, my preferred approach is to select and extract text (copy/paste, perhaps using the poppler library for larger-scale work), dump that to plain-text and convert that (manually / scripted) to Markdown. From there you can get to PDF or pretty much any other format through tools such as pandoc.

fschuett 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Rendering to SVG, at least that's what I did on https://fschutt.github.io/printpdf/

I am currently writing a WASM-ready PDF toolkit that can handle both HTML to PDF and then rendering PDF pages to SVG. However, it's not yet production-ready.

The underlying HTML engine is currently a severe "work in progress", but it gives me the low-level access that I need: https://azul.rs/reftest

bencornia a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I have been using pdf2htmlex with some success. https://github.com/pdf2htmlEX/pdf2htmlEX

drabbiticus a day ago | parent [-]

This is really cool, so thanks for sharing. Since the motivating goal for the question you are answering is WCAG compliance, is the output of pdf2htmlex meaningfully more WCAG compliant?

haft a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A revers of this question; what is the best way to convert pdf to html? We are required by accessibility law to make our PDFs WCAG compliant however it would be easier to convert these to HTML.

freedomben a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd love to go the other way: convert a PDF into a self contained HTML page that renders properly in a browser. It's been way harder than I thought it would. Any advice?

mr_mitm a day ago | parent | next [-]

You could embed it as a base64 blob, embed PDF.js (which is included by browsers anyway, I think) and use that to render it in the HTML. But I realize you probably meant a static HTML without JavaScript.

freedomben a day ago | parent [-]

Yes ideally, but even this is helpful, thank you!

gucci-on-fleek 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can use dvisvgm, pdftocairo, or Inkscape to convert PDF to SVG, which you can either use directly or insert inline into an HTML document.

drabbiticus a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> renders properly

Depending on your requirements on both PDF input and HTML output, there is often no way to do this that is both easy and general. At it's core, PDFs are not designed to be universally reflowable.

jvanveen 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Puppeteer (Pdfium => https://github.com/chromium/pdfium)

Glyptodon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The last time I had to do this I scripted a back-end that scaled up headless chrome browsers to render web pages to PDF. I think it was using Puppeteer, but was a few years ago. (FWIW the decision I think was mostly driven by the environment, I think there are other options.)

bob1029 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If your HTML is simply an intermediary to get you to a PDF, you could consider just skipping straight to building the PDF directly:

https://pdfbox.apache.org

This would be far more efficient than spinning up an entire browser and printing PDFs to disk.

deaddodo a day ago | parent [-]

Building PDF directly (unless you're creating documents, especially fillables) is non-intuitive. Most PDFs are people trying to capture live data in a cached manner. If not, using a preliminary format like Markdown/HTML/LaTeX/DocX/etc to generate your PDF is almost always more intuitive.

cjm42 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've had decent results with html-pdf-chrome[0], which automates printing to PDF from Chromium or Chrome.

[0] https://github.com/westy92/html-pdf-chrome/

fredguth a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would use pandoc and convert to pdf using typst:

```

pandoc input.html -t typst -o output.typ

typst compile output.typ output.pdf

```

zja 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

pandoc

w10-1 a day ago | parent | next [-]

To reinforce this: pandoc has been the go-to for a long, long time and they have encountered and addressed tons of issues, which is especially important for two underspecified and over-provisioned formats like HTML and pdf.

Go through the revision and bug history to see a sample of issues you're avoiding by using a highly-trafficked, well-supported solution.

The only reason not to use it is when they say they don't support a given feature that you need; and the nice thing there is that they'll usually say it, and have a good reason why.

The other reason to use pandoc is that while you might currently want PDF as your outbound format, you might end up preferring some other format (structured logically instead of by layout); with pandoc that change would be easy.

Finally, pandoc is extensible. If you do find that you want different output in some respect, you can easily write an plugin (in python or haskel or ...) to make exactly the tweak you need.

hhthrowaway1230 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

doesn't pandoc rely on some engine itself?

cpach 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yep, you need something like XeTeX in order to render the PDF.

brudgers 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Curious why that matters to you?

I mean everything has dependencies (some of the solutions elsewhere require Chrome and other common solutions require the JVM). At least Pandoc is GPL.

kakokiyrvoooo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It matters because pandoc is not rendering the website to pdf, it converts the html to latex and then uses a latex engine to render the pdf.

brudgers a day ago | parent [-]

Forgive me but I don’t understand why that matters to you and am trying to understand what the issue with Latex is.

Because lots of things work this way. For example compilers built on LLV uses an intermediate language and Python uses byte code.

I suspect some html to pdf tools go through postScript.

kreetx a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There are multiple ways to "depend", so if pandoc executes some external tool all of the work then might as well use that external tool directly. You will get more control over how the conversion happens, know for what search for when in trouble etc.

brudgers a day ago | parent [-]

My understanding and experience is that Latex has a significant learning curve and Pandoc provides a more gentle front end.

Of course Latex gives you fine control to hand tune the engine…but that doesn’t seem like what the OP is looking for.

beeforpork a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Does pandoc do JavaScript? For stuff that is rendered (I don't want animated, interactive PDFs...).

throw03172019 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I run chromium on my server and render the PDF from there using puppeteer.

ratStallion a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My website's content is xml, and I use Apache Fop to turn it into a PDF with page numbers and other nice things. It works nicely, but takes some setup.

0xMohan 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Open the html file in firefox and `ctrl + p`

estimator7292 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IIRC LibreOffice has some command line tools to do all kinds of document conversion

handzhiev a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm surprised no one mentioned mPDF. Maybe php isn't very popular here :)

crsr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Browserless have browsers as a service, and a dedicated pdf endpoint[0] you can call. Had really good experience with this.

[0] http://docs.browserless.io/rest-apis/pdf-api

ftchd a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the only thing I found to work reliably well is simply Chromium's print feature

gigatexal a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

pandoc is your friend.

lucis a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

jsPDF is a work of art https://parall.ax/products/jspdf

flanbiscuit a day ago | parent [-]

Been looking at this one. I inherited a project and I set it up to use puppeteer and chrome server side to generate a PDF from HTML but it's too much overhead. I want to do this all on the frontend because it should be simple enough to do and can use less resources on the server.

exabrial a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

openhtmltopdf is what we're using. Some outdated versions.

supersaw a day ago | parent [-]

Been using this as well. It's worth noting that while the original project appears to have been abandoned, it has since been forked and is currently maintained here: https://github.com/openhtmltopdf/openhtmltopdf

exabrial a day ago | parent [-]

thanks, didnt know that!

gangtao 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I use chrome and ctrl+P

busymom0 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you are able to do this on a Mac, you can load the html in a WKWebView and then use the function:

createPDF(configuration:completionHandler:)

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview/c...:)

roschdal a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OpenPDF for Java https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF

efnx a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

pandoc

syngrog66 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

pandoc

fogzen 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don’t. Show a web page and open the print dialog, and tell people to save as PDF. All major browsers support this, and the browser HTML to PDF code is the most robust and accurate.

crazygringo a day ago | parent | next [-]

There's nothing in OP's question that suggests this is a one-off operation in response to a user action.

It's very likely to be a massive batch operation of a ton of HTML files that might not even be their own site.

hhthrowaway1230 a day ago | parent [-]

this is the case indeed

chibbell a day ago | parent | prev [-]

That does make sense where possible. I do feel like OPs question is super relevant if you are doing anything where the PDF has to be rendered server side, like say as part of a larger data process when producing an exportable report in PDF format.

journal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

if you are doing html to pdf, you might also need the ability to merge. a few more features and you're better of with a commercial solution.

crazygringo a day ago | parent [-]

Merge what?

pentium166 a day ago | parent [-]

I assume combining 2+ documents. For example, attaching a cover page with document owner/version control/lifecycle information to an existing PDF.

crazygringo a day ago | parent [-]

That's the easiest thing in the world with free software.

One way is to install poppler-utils and use pdfunite. There are many other open-source packages you can use as well.