can you really get 'much' simpler than REST already is? it's only 5 constraints.
Why is it significant that the web evolved between 1995 and when Fielding defined REST?
To most people, the paper is well-reasoned and REST is observable in the web where the constraints appear to produce their supposed beneficial effects. I think it's reasonable to see REST as the underlying style of the web, and the web has some very beneficial properties (scalability, evolvability) which therefore stand to REST's merit.
None of this has anything to with what I said, or with the criticism of REST that you replied to originally. I don't agree with his take on REST (at least not entirely) but it wasn't lazy. This argument, which uses the string "Fielding" at least once per comment, is lazy. That's all I'm saying.
Why is it significant that the web evolved between 1995 and when Fielding defined REST?
To most people, the paper is well-reasoned and REST is observable in the web where the constraints appear to produce their supposed beneficial effects. I think it's reasonable to see REST as the underlying style of the web, and the web has some very beneficial properties (scalability, evolvability) which therefore stand to REST's merit.