My webpack config specifies that fonts should be loaded using url-loader
, and when I try to view the page using Chrome I get the following error:
I know this doesn't answer OPs exact question but I came here with the same symptom but a different cause:
I had the .scss files of Slick Slider included like this:
@import "../../../node_modules/slick-carousel/slick/slick.scss";
On closer inspection it turned out that the it was trying to load the font from an invalid location (<host>/assets/css/fonts/slick.woff
), the way it was referenced from the stylesheet.
I ended up simply copying the /font/
to my assets/css/
and the issue was resolved for me.
I experienced the same problem, but for different reasons.
After Will Madden's solution didn't help, I tried every alternative fix I could find via the Intertubes - also to no avail. Exploring further, I just happened to open up one of the font files at issue. The original content of the file had somehow been overwritten by Webpack to include some kind of configuration info, likely from previous tinkering with the file-loader. I replaced the corrupted files with the originals, and voilà, the errors disappeared (for both Chrome and Firefox).
The limit
was the clue for my code, but I had to specify it like this:
use: [
{
loader: 'url-loader',
options: {
limit: 8192,
},
},
],
As of 2018,
use MiniCssExtractPlugin
for Webpack(> 4.0) will solve this problem.
https://github.com/webpack-contrib/mini-css-extract-plugin
Using extract-text-webpack-plugin
in the accepted answer is NOT recommended for Webpack 4.0+.
TL;DR Use absolute paths to your assets (including your complete hostname) by setting your output.publicPath
to e.g. "http://example.com/assets/".
The problem is the way that URLs are resolved by Chrome when they're parsed from a dynamically loaded CSS blob.
When you load the page, the browser loads your Webpack bundle entry JavaScript file, which (when you're using the style-loader
) also contains a Base64 encoded copy of your CSS, which gets loaded into the page.
This is what it looks like in Chrome DevTools
That's fine for all the images or fonts which are encoded into the CSS as data URIs (i.e. the content of the file is embedded in the CSS), but for assets referenced by URL, the browser has to find and fetch the file.
Now by default the file-loader
(which url-loader
delegates to for large files) will use relative URLs to reference assets - and that's the problem!
These are the URLs generated by
file-loader
by default - relative URLs
When you use relative URLs, Chrome will resolve them relative to the containing CSS file. Ordinarily that's fine, but in this case the containing file is at blob://...
and any relative URLs are referenced the same way. The end result is that Chrome attempts to load them from the parent HTML file, and ends up trying to parse the HTML file as the content of the font, which obviously won't work.
Force the file-loader
to use absolute paths including the protocol ("http" or "https").
Change your webpack config to include something equivalent to:
{
output: {
publicPath: "http://localhost:8080/", // Development Server
// publicPath: "http://example.com/", // Production Server
}
}
Now the URLs that it generates will look like this:
Absolute URLs!
These URLs will be correctly parsed by Chrome and every other browser.
extract-text-webpack-plugin
It's worth noting that if you're extracting your CSS to a separate file, you won't have this problem because your CSS will be in a proper file and URLs will be correctly resolved.
As with @user3006381 above, my issue was not just relative URLs but that webpack was placing the files as if they were javascript files. Their contents were all basically:
module.exports = __webpack_public_path__ + "7410dd7fd1616d9a61625679285ff5d4.eot";
in the fonts directory instead of the real fonts and the font files were in the output folder under hash codes. To fix this, I had to change the test on my url-loader (in my case my image processor) to not load the fonts folder. I still had to set output.publicPath in webpack.config.js as @will-madden notes in his excellent answer.