<p dir="auto"><code class="notranslate">glyphicon</code> makes html and css longer, why not using only <code class="notranslate">gi</code>.</p>
<p dir="auto">e.g.:</p>
<div class="highlight highlight-text-html-basic notranslate position-relative overflow-auto" dir="auto" data-snippet-clipboard-copy-content="&lt;span class=&quot;gi gi-search&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;"><pre class="notranslate"><span class="pl-kos">&lt;</span><span class="pl-ent">span</span> <span class="pl-c1">class</span>="<span class="pl-s">gi gi-search</span>"<span class="pl-kos">&gt;</span><span class="pl-kos">&lt;/</span><span class="pl-ent">span</span><span class="pl-kos">&gt;</span></pre></div>
<p dir="auto">Where as Documentation already refers Glyphicon, or may be public will link back to Glyphicon. So, this can't be a big issue!</p>
<p dir="auto">I'm sure some where along the line there was a discussion about how icon classes should be declared, but how the current format was decided on is beyond me.</p>
<ul dir="auto">
<li>it takes forever to type by hand</li>
<li>impossible to switch to other icons-as-a-font libraries and keep the same code as most of them use Bootstrap 2.x <code class="notranslate">.icon-</code></li>
<li>approx 17 extra bytes I don't want or need</li>
<li>just plain old silly</li>
</ul>
<p dir="auto">I believe it would be in the best interest of the Bootstrap community to start a serious discussion on standardizing the icon class names. More for than just for Bootstrap, too. Font-Awesome and the other icons-as-a-font libraries would benefit from standardization as well.</p>
<p dir="auto">To me, it seems natural to stick to Bootstrap 2.x, (just <code class="notranslate">.icon-</code>), however extending with an extra <code class="notranslate">.icon</code> before it would also be better than the existing implementation.</p>