[peteorpeter]

It might be time for me to stop worrying about IE8 and embrace `transform`-dependent icons.

I regularly create one-off semantic icons as long as they don't rely on `transform`. That limits it to ones based on a character glyph - (i), (?), (x), etc - strictly orthogonal blocks - (+), (-), etc. - or CSS triangles - mostly arrows (which don't always render great anywho).

I'm always too concerned about the fallback in browsers without `transform`. But really, that's illogical - it's just IE <= 8, and generally don't need to worry about that support anyways. I guess my hangup is that the meaning of the icon gets garbled when it isn't displayed correctly in older browsers, and that seems like it crosses a line. (Thought about the "semantics" of an icon quickly feels like Philosophy 101 and probably means its time to get back to work!)

As others have pointed out, I wouldn't use the pixel-based positioning/widths as this does, but `em`s, `rem`s or `percent`s. Relying on `tranform: scale(x)` would complicate layout flows - for one thing you'd always need to compensate for the scale with `margin`, `padding`, or other pixel-budging.