1. repeating my objection to this pointless change
2. its only a partial job - what if in 2 days someone submits a pr with fa-7x or any other valid and working fa class that has not been duplicated as per this pr

3. joomla-cms/layouts/joomla/content/emptystate.php

   Line 39 in a07bc77

   <span class="fa-8x mb-4 <?php echo $icon; ?>" aria-hidden="true"></span>

Then they can use fa-7x, but at least in the core, we are being consistent.

@Quy You want to start moving away from icon-xx. It was kept purely for 3rd party compatability reasons. There is absolutely no reason for core to use icon- over fas-

@Quy SCSS - CS: https://ci.joomla.org/joomla/joomla-cms/44115/1/20

PR #30707 changed fas- to icon-. Is it too late to revert before RC?

That other pr was reverting poorly implemented code despite multiple people pointing that out in advance ;(

icon- was created to be a bc compatibility layer with iconmoon. it was never intended to be a conversion between fontawesome syntax and iconmoon syntax which is what this pr (and others) are doing

Let's do it right out of the gate.

@wilsonge Please confirm to revert #30707.

reverting that PR will not achieve that

Then I am lost what the solution should be.

The solution is not to do anything

So it is ok to have mixed icon- and fa- in the backend?

yes - I see no reason why not. Especially for the utility classes

Closing then. Thanks!