Update to clarify combining characters

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 4/25/14 12:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> The "variants" discussed in the JET spec (RFC 3743) are
> described in terms of "characters".  In particular, the tables
> are arranged around "character variants".  At great dead of the
> confusion around variants [1] has gotten involved with
> look-alike (or "confusable") characters but the key JET
> discussions were about characters with equivalent or
> substitutable meanings.  Not only was the SC<->TC discussion not
> about look-alike characters [2] but the whole idea of
> "characters with equivalent meanings" doesn't mean the same
> thing for ideographic scripts that it does for
> alphabetic-phonetic ones.  "Character" was the right term to use
> to describe the relationships because they are called
> characters.  But, in retrospect, I wish we had written RFC 3743
> to use terminology about equivalence in meaning or semantics,
> not terminology that could easily be interpreted in
> glyph-relationships terms.

+1.

Eric