Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft hit the spot twenty years ago with XML-RPC. Well then, why are we even arguing about this? You like pasta, I like pizza, and never the twain shall meet. REST was born out of rejection for XML-RPC (and SOAP, which was its logical evolution once The Enterprise got involved). If you like XML-RPC, by all means keep using it. I just don't see the point in advocating (as TFA does) that people should abandon wor…
> REST was born out of rejection for XML-RPC (and SOAP, which was its logical evolution once The Enterprise got involved). Not even remotely true. REST was a re-invention of XML-RPC wheel -- for the web and using baroque HTTP conventions that were meant for documents and hyperlinks. XML-RPC was never rejected because it never caught much on in the first place. On the enterprise they pushed for SOAP at the same time,…
Not even remotely true. REST is an architectural style inspired by the then-existing web, describing an idealized structure based on it, and developed in parallel with and guiding HTTP/1.1. It does not mandate HTTP conventions, though HTTP is itself an example of the style.
REST only involves HTTP conventions to the extent that one decides to use it over HTTP, and only because HTTP involves (obviously) HTTP conventions.