Css – Different behaviours of treating \ (backslash) in the url by FireFox and Chrome

backslashcssfirefoxgoogle-chromeurl

BACKGROUND

According to my experience when my ubuntu workstation is configured on domain with active directory, the user name created for me was according to the following pattern.

domain_name\user_name

Using the userdir extensions of apache on linux will require to use user name in the URL in order to access public_html in the home directory.

http://localhost/~domain_name\user_name

PROBLEM A:

Chrome converts all the backslash '\' characters in the URL to forward slash '/' and the resultant url becomes as under that is totally different and always results Not Found.

http://localhost/~domain_name/user_name

Firefox on the other hand does not convert back slash to forward slash so http request to intended target is served by web server.

Common solution is to encode back slash in %5C.

PROBLEM B:

If we use a similar path (containing \ in path) in CSS @import construct, the import process of css file as HTTP Get Request is failed by reporting 404 error and the URL reported in the 404 error miss the presence of \ altogether. It means \ is removed from the URL before to invoke GET request against it.

This behavior is common in Firefox and Chrome. But they have uncommon solutions

Firefox needs escaped back slash to work in css import process.

@import url("http://localhost/~domain_name\\user_name/path/to/css");

Chrome as usual needs an encoded back slash solution.

@import url("http://localhost/~domain_name%5Cuser_name/path/to/css");

What is the unified solutions to deal with \ in URL?
Is there a way to avoid a \ to appear in user name?

Best Solution

The unified solution to deal with backslash in a URL is to use %5C. RFC 2396 did not allow that character in URLs at all (so any behavior regarding that character was just error-recovery behavior). RFC 3986 does allow it, but is not widely implemented, not least because it's not exactly compatible with existing URL processors.

Chrome, in particular, does the same thing as IE: assumes you meant a forward slash any time you type a backslash, as you discovered, because that's what Windows file paths do.

Examples

Roger Pate

This is my name, which is an identifier. It is like a URI, but cannot be a URL, as it tells you nothing about my location or how to contact me. In this case it also happens to identify at least 5 other people in the USA alone.

4914 West Bay Street, Nassau, Bahamas

This is a locator, which is an identifier for that physical location. It is like both a URL and URI (since all URLs are URIs), and also identifies me indirectly as "resident of..". In this case it uniquely identifies me, but that would change if I get a roommate.

I say "like" because these examples do not follow the required syntax.

Popular confusion

From Wikipedia:

In computing, a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is a subset of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that specifies where an identified resource is available and the mechanism for retrieving it. In popular usage and in many technical documents and verbal discussions it is often incorrectly used as a synonym for URI, ... [emphasis mine]

Because of this common confusion, many products and documentation incorrectly use one term instead of the other, assign their own distinction, or use them synonymously.

URNs

My name, Roger Pate, could be like a URN (Uniform Resource Name), except those are much more regulated and intended to be unique across both space and time.

Because I currently share this name with other people, it's not globally unique and would not be appropriate as a URN. However, even if no other family used this name, I'm named after my paternal grandfather, so it still wouldn't be unique across time. And even if that wasn't the case, the possibility of naming my descendants after me make this unsuitable as a URN.

URNs are different from URLs in this rigid uniqueness constraint, even though they both share the syntax of URIs.

The maximum length of a URL in different browsers

Short answer - de facto limit of 2000 characters

If you keep URLs under 2000 characters, they'll work in virtually any combination of client and server software.

If you are targeting particular browsers, see below for more details on specific limits.

Longer answer - first, the standards...

RFC 2616 (Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1) section 3.2.1 says

The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs. A server SHOULD return 414 (Request-URI Too Long) status if a URI is longer than the server can handle (see section 10.4.15).

That RFC has been obsoleted by RFC7230 which is a refresh of the HTTP/1.1 specification. It contains similar language, but also goes on to suggest this:

Various ad hoc limitations on request-line length are found in practice. It is RECOMMENDED that all HTTP senders and recipients support, at a minimum, request-line lengths of 8000 octets.

...and the reality

That's what the standards say. For the reality, there was an article on boutell.com (link goes to Internet Archive backup) that discussed what individual browser and server implementations will support. The executive summary is:

Extremely long URLs are usually a mistake. URLs over 2,000 characters will not work in the most popular web browsers. Don't use them if you intend your site to work for the majority of Internet users.

(Note: this is a quote from an article written in 2006, but in 2015 IE's declining usage means that longer URLs do work for the majority. However, IE still has the limitation...)

Internet Explorer's limitations...

IE8's maximum URL length is 2083 chars, and it seems IE9 has a similar limit.

I've tested IE10 and the address bar will only accept 2083 chars. You can click a URL which is longer than this, but the address bar will still only show 2083 characters of this link.

There's a nice writeup on the IE Internals blog which goes into some of the background to this.

There are mixed reports IE11 supports longer URLs - see comments below. Given some people report issues, the general advice still stands.

Search engines like URLs < 2048 chars...

Be aware that the sitemaps protocol, which allows a site to inform search engines about available pages, has a limit of 2048 characters in a URL. If you intend to use sitemaps, a limit has been decided for you! (see Calin-Andrei Burloiu's answer below)

There's also some research from 2010 into the maximum URL length that search engines will crawl and index. They found the limit was 2047 chars, which appears allied to the sitemap protocol spec. However, they also found the Google SERP tool wouldn't cope with URLs longer than 1855 chars.

CDNs have limits

CDNs also impose limits on URI length, and will return a 414 Too long request when these limits are reached, for example:

(credit to timrs2998 for providing that info in the comments)

Additional browser roundup

I tested the following against an Apache 2.4 server configured with a very large LimitRequestLine and LimitRequestFieldSize.

Browser     Address bar   document.location
                          or anchor tag
------------------------------------------
Chrome          32779           >64k
Android          8192           >64k
Firefox          >64k           >64k
Safari           >64k           >64k
IE11             2047           5120
Edge 16          2047          10240

See also this answer from Matas Vaitkevicius below.

Is this information up to date?

This is a popular question, and as the original research is ~14 years old I'll try to keep it up to date: As of Sep 2020, the advice still stands. Even though IE11 may possibly accept longer URLs, the ubiquity of older IE installations plus the search engine limitations mean staying under 2000 chars is the best general policy.