Also РОСНАНО. It's not "pochaho", it's "rosnano".
The reverse is also true: there's a "Bona Capona" restaurant but its logo uses a typeface that makes it tempting to read it as "Vopa Saropa".
> It can be written in Serbian Cyrillic or Gaj's Latin alphabet, whose thirty letters mutually map one-to-one, and the orthography is highly phonemic in all standards.
Though digraphs spoil the clarity somewhat.
Which reminded me that I should check what Kazakhstan is doing to its language. They seem to at least have avoided the eldritch monstrosity of Polish with ‘Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz’ and the like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKZclMWS1U). But they are still setting themselves up for English-language people pretending they can pronounce anything Latin-looking—despite English itself demanding you memorize the dictionary twice, for speaking and writing. So Kazakhstan will soon have its own great writer Karel Kaypek.
Thankfully, a lot of tooling designed to present text to a human (From Word to LaTeX to HTML) already have ways to do this, so folks writing textile documentation will now be able to take advantage of this, too.
A glyph in one font may look confusingly similar to a completely different glyph in another font (or the same font). If you don't have a digital version you then have to rely on context clues. You can quite reliably tell if a given C is LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C or CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER ES, by assessing the surrounding text and the medium to see if the author was most likely writing for a Russian or an English audience.
Of course, it's possible that manufacturers currently mix contexts confusingly. In that case, having each one draw from a single Unicode palette should help.