> I find Fielding's writing on REST opaque to the point of unintelligibility. I agree, somewhat, but I would formulate it a bit differently: REST is defined fr

> I find Fielding's writing on REST opaque to the point of unintelligibility. I agree, somewhat, but I would formulate it a bit differently: REST is defined from a user's (or client's) standpoint. It is ill-defined on the other side, even to the point that it is hard to say whether any ruleset can be derived for implementers to use in building their applications. Essentially all of the popular conventions like Resource objects are somewhat misguided, as they are not in any way implied. I have tried to hammer it in to my acquaintances and colleagues that if you pick one thing about REST to base everything on, it is links, not URLs. I have pondered on writing a "everything you know about REST is wrong"-article, but have thus far been counterweighed by the consideration that perhaps this perversion that passes for REST is actually better than the real thing.