Do "font-icons-fa" and "font-icons-mdi" really belong under core Silk namespaces? Probably not! They should probably be considered an "extension" to the core classes, say at the same level as the markdown feature is. This is because many users might want to omit them if they don't need them, as they increase their site's download footprint.
Note that recently Silk has been adding more and more SVG icons into its feature set. That seems more like something "core".
If we go through with this change, I think it implies the artifact should become "com.varabyte.kobwebx:kobwebx-silk-icons-xxx" and then the namespace for all the icons move to "com.varabyte.kobwebx". Of course, we'll need to update all templates to use the new ones.
Old codebases should still work because "com.varabyte.kobweb:kobweb-silk-icons-xxx" will still be hosted, although once they bump up their kobweb version, they may get compile errors.
Do "font-icons-fa" and "font-icons-mdi" really belong under core Silk namespaces? Probably not! They should probably be considered an "extension" to the core classes, say at the same level as the markdown feature is. This is because many users might want to omit them if they don't need them, as they increase their site's download footprint.
Note that recently Silk has been adding more and more SVG icons into its feature set. That seems more like something "core".
If we go through with this change, I think it implies the artifact should become "com.varabyte.kobwebx:kobwebx-silk-icons-xxx" and then the namespace for all the icons move to "com.varabyte.kobwebx". Of course, we'll need to update all templates to use the new ones.
Old codebases should still work because "com.varabyte.kobweb:kobweb-silk-icons-xxx" will still be hosted, although once they bump up their kobweb version, they may get compile errors.