![text encoding for arabic text encoding for arabic](https://darrengoossens.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/untitled-1.png)
I don't know about the Arabic code points, however, so I don't know if you risk having variable-length encodings here. UTF-16 will give you better space efficiency than UTF-8 if you're using predominantly Arabic text. The more European text in your documents, the better the UTF-8 choice will be. On the other hand, UTF-8 is likely your best choice if you're doing a lot of mixed European/Arabic text. This makes actual processing of strings slow and error-prone. For example you can't easily get the fifth Arabic character in a string because some characters might be 1 byte long (punctuation, say), while others are two or three. More of a problem is that the variable-length of the encoding makes some string operations difficult and slow. This is rarely a problem, however, in practice in these days of cheap and plentiful RAM unless you have a lot of text to deal with. If your text is all Arabic it will actually be larger than the equivalent text in UTF-16. UTF-8Īs Joe Gauterin points out, UTF-8 is very efficient for European texts but can get increasingly inefficient the "farther" from the Latin alphabet you get. To make the answer more complete, your realistic choices are:Įach comes with tradeoffs and advantages. It can encode any code point in the Unicode standard.
![text encoding for arabic text encoding for arabic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Arabic_Language.svg/1200px-Arabic_Language.svg.png)
I suggest going with utf-8 if you can afford the size increase. MySql) using this encoding (so the database will also be encoded with utf-8) its size is going to be double what it would have been if it were encoded with windows-1256 (so the database will be encoded with latin-1). The downside of this encoding is that if you are going to save Arabic content to a database (e.g. I mean if you want to have Arabic words in the your url, you need them to be in utf-8 or it won't work. This encoding solves the previous problem and also works in urls. The problem with this encoding is that if you are developing a website for international use, this encoding won't work with every user and they will see gibberish instead of the content. You can see that they are using this encoding. Here is one of the biggest Arabic web-development forums. It works in most cases (90%) for Arabic users. This is the most common encoding Arabic websites use. I develop mostly Arabic websites and these are the two encodings I use : 1.
![text encoding for arabic text encoding for arabic](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tmNcO.png)
It's a trade off and, unless you're dealing with huge documents, it doesn't matter. However, you're not just encoding Arabic - you're encoding a significant number of characters that can be stored in a single byte in UTF-8, but take two bytes in UTF-16 all the html encoding characters, = and all the html element names. However, if you were wondering what encoding would be most efficient:Īll Arabic characters can be encoded using a single UTF-16 code unit (2 bytes), but they may take either 2 or 3 UTF-8 code units (1 byte each), so if you were just encoding Arabic, UTF-16 would be a more space efficient option.
TEXT ENCODING FOR ARABIC FULL
UTF-8 can store the full Unicode range, so it's fine to use for Arabic.