No. Most people, when they use "REST", do so incorrectly. The article is right, for example, that one of the requirements in the definition of REST was the use

No. Most people, when they use "REST", do so incorrectly. The article is right, for example, that one of the requirements in the definition of REST was the use of URLs to identify resources: > REST uses a resource identifier to identify the particular resource involved in an interaction between components. (And it goes on to cite URLs as an example of a resource identifier in REST as applied to the modern web; note that "REST" is an architectural style to describe the design of systems, the web is an application of that style.) Many allegedly RESTful APIs simply don't do that, and instead you'll see something like, {"id": 32, …} Particularly so when combined with tightly coupled URL construction. There are other facets of REST that you could compare to most JSON/HTTP APIs and find that they don't obey that facet, either.