<p dir="auto">At first. Thank you all the Bootstrap 3 developers for your great work.</p>
<p dir="auto">For icons, Bootstrap 3.0 switched from "icon-<em>" to "glyphicon" "glyphicon-</em>".</p>
<p dir="auto">mbo written here <a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="18580083" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/10201" data-hovercard-type="issue" data-hovercard-url="/twbs/bootstrap/issues/10201/hovercard?comment_id=23304007&amp;comment_type=issue_comment" href="https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/10201#issuecomment-23304007">#10201 (comment)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="auto">Overall, it comes down to performance. The attribute selectors we used in 2.x just don't cut it in larger projects and classes are way more performant. It also fits with our base and modifier class approach elsewhere in the project.</p>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">and here: <a href="https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/8332" data-hovercard-type="pull_request" data-hovercard-url="/twbs/bootstrap/pull/8332/hovercard">#8332 "Remove Glyphicons"</a></p>
<blockquote>
<ol dir="auto">
<li>Makes Glyphicons more readily available to the masses, with or without Bootstrap's integration.</li>
<li>Keeps the core project as lean as possible with regards to number of files, build processes, versioning, and more.</li>
<li>Enables the community to more easily swap other icon libraries in and out.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<p dir="auto">So the first target is better performance.  We get it by using base class and a modifier class.</p>
<p dir="auto">And the second target is more easily swap other icon libraries.</p>
<p dir="auto">Using the product name "glyphicon" in the class names work against this!</p>
<p dir="auto">It links bootstrap 3 stronger to glyphicon as ever before. It brings a lot of trouble and only ugly solutions for providers of icon sets and also for users of icon set.</p>
<p dir="auto">See here for details: <a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="13054427" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/940" data-hovercard-type="issue" data-hovercard-url="/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/940/hovercard?comment_id=23774110&amp;comment_type=issue_comment" href="https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/940#issuecomment-23774110">FortAwesome/Font-Awesome#940 (comment)</a></p>
<p dir="auto">But why?</p>
<p dir="auto">Using "icon" as base class and "icon-" as prefix for modifier classes (or may be "bs-icon" and "bs-icon-") would avoid many of these problems.</p>
<p dir="auto">I beg of you the bootstrap developers, do not longer take a product name of a special icon set as default class name in bootstrap.</p>
<p dir="auto">Is there anybody who support this wish?<br>
Please add a vote.</p>
<p dir="auto">ps: Sorry for my English, I still try to find the right words with a dictionary.</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>