[steveklabnik]

In the general case, I agree with you. However, everyone knows what 'RESTful urls' and 'RESTful apis' mean, it's just that it's not the original recipe REST. For better or worse, the definition has changed.

It's still effective communication, because you know I'm contrasting '/bets/1' with 'index.aspx?action=displayBet&bet_id=1&' (which still could be quite RESTful, actually...), and a form that POSTs to '/bets' vs. a form with method=GET request to 'index.aspx?action=addAnotherBet&=SomeValue=1&something_else=2'. And yes, there's more to it than that, but you get the idea.

Just because it makes puritains die inside doesn't make it wrong.

[rlivsey]

In this case I'd opt for "clean" as a better word for what you're trying to describe.

I'd have thought everyone understands what a clean URL is without bringing across all the extra baggage/meaning of calling it RESTful.

[steveklabnik]

In this case, you're probably right.

I'm usually discussing this more fully, as in "RESTful API vs. SOAP" or the actual nitty-gritty of POST vs PUT requests and such. "clean" works much better in this context, though, thanks. I'll file that one away...

I'm one of those puritans who cries a bit inside myself.

[derefr]

I would say that a RESTful URL is simply one that multiple verbs can be applied to. That is, e.g. GETing and POSTing against the URL do different things, thus making the URL the "noun" and the HTTP method the "verb." Completely orthogonal to whether the URL is human-readable.