When I started using the www the term "API" referred to functions in programming languages not to httpd configurations. It has been bizarre to see the appearance of this terminology to refer to websites.
In every instance I have seen, the free "web API" involves an extra HTTP header(s) that, in lieu of a common one such as "User-Agent", can be used to track, rate-limit and/or selectively block a www user.
The upside of the "web API" idea IMO is the serving of public information in formats other than HTML or PDF. It's great.
But why not just do this without using the extra HTTP header(s), tracking and limitations.
In every instance I have seen, the free "web API" involves an extra HTTP header(s) that, in lieu of a common one such as "User-Agent", can be used to track, rate-limit and/or selectively block a www user.
The upside of the "web API" idea IMO is the serving of public information in formats other than HTML or PDF. It's great.
But why not just do this without using the extra HTTP header(s), tracking and limitations.