It's very difficult to talk about character codes, fonts, printed characters etc. without having a consistent way of naming the concepts. It would not usually occur to us that it might be the letter A from the Cyrillic or Greek alphabets, even though those alphabets have a letter that plays a similar role and looks similar. If we then consider the Latin character H, here we have a letter where similarly-shaped characters exist in both the Cyrillic and in the Greek alphabets, but playing quite different roles in each. Viewed in isolation, without any knowledge of the alphabet they came from, these printed letters could be mistaken for each other, but it seems inappropriate to consider them as equivalent to each other, and our usage will preserve the distinction between them. However, this line of reasoning is not particularly helpful in the present context, and we will not pursue it.
Similar dilemmas occur with punctuation and diacritics.
Just by looking at them in isolation, a matched pair of quotation marks could be mistaken for acute and grave accents, and a caret could be mistaken for a circumflex accent. However, they would be used in quite different ways. It's pretty clear that it would be a mistake, in general. A, irrespective of its font or style. In particular, when dealing with Unicode, a subtly different terminology is used.