> I also don't see jargon as something that may or may not 'catch on', I see it as a way to organize ideas in a professional area so as to ease precise communication. Obviously, as its a technical term, 'majority' here refers to the majority of the respective technical audience, not the majority across all people.
> I don't think any 'majority' even cares about REST let alone know it exists. This use is somewhat consistent with Fielding's, though it would probably be better to focus on naming the particular element. Though, to be fair, it often does, although sometimes to only some particular part of it (and not always the same part) as opposed to systems that lack the part being focused on. Even then, its seems to be intended to communicate 'conforming to the REST architectural style', it just fails to do so because its done without any knowledge of the REST architectural style (and not even with an consistent wrong view such that the use of the term could be said to have a particular definition different from that that Fielding laid out for REST.) 'RESTful', when it doesn't actually refer to Fielding's REST, generally doesn't mean anything, its just an empty buzzword being dropped into a product description that communicates no meaningful information at all. REST, in the form coined by Roy Fielding, is actually almost the opposite of what 'RESTful' means today,
