Ever notice how nobody calls their API “RESTpure”? Instead they call it “RESTful” or “RESTish”. That’s because nobody can agree on what all the methods, pay

Ever notice how nobody calls their API “RESTpure”? Instead they call it “RESTful” or “RESTish”. That’s because nobody can agree on what all the methods, payloads, and response codes really mean. These reasons have nothing to do with why people don't use the term "REST" versus using "RESTful". RESTful is the compromised approach, cribbing some of the concepts outlined in Fielding's paper but dispensing with others. Among those are a de-emphasis of linking, and a url naming pattern. HTTP verbs describe types of actions in RESTful lingo, versus meaning something about the different idempotency & safety guarantees of a request in the REST paper. In REST, I'm not sure that a lot of these issues are that contentious. I do think that some of the emphasized points in "RESTful" design practice can create more contention in API design, but that's the downfall of that one pattern, it has nothing to do with what Fielding described. No governing body - at least to my knowledge - has convened to set things straight IANA has a ton of info on link relations and they're thoroughly speced. IETF has tons of API / REST related specifications. Profiles allow for defining what your data means, there's open source curated lists of these profiles already so if you were designing an API you could even leverage existing works to make your design easier. Roy is probably a great guy and he certainly had a lot of great ideas. However, I don’t believe that RESTful APIs was one of them. This statement is just downright hysterical given the relative disparity here. So much of the web is owed to Fielding's paper, there's been countless books and blog posts and just human man hours devoted to the work he's done. Who's this guy? Why is this such a trend in blog posts in this community, it just looks foolish and comes off as petty...