What leads you to believe that a HTTP API does not meet the definition of a API?
What leads you to believe that a HTTP API does not meet the definition of a API?
I don't think so. The pervasiveness of web apps and applications consuming web services means there's a lot of work involving web APIs. This doesn't mean the definition of API was narrowed. It's all about context. If your bread and butter is developing web services, you don't waste time with context-free definitions of your API. You talk about the API and everyone is on the same page.
You even admitted "The pervasiveness of web apps and applications consuming web services means there's a lot of work involving web APIs" and "If your bread and butter is developing web services, you don't waste time with context-free definitions of your API" which is acknowledging the common use definition of API has morphed into Web API. It's only in the context of technical documents or documents that are explicitly referring to non-web APIs that use API and it is understood to mean something other than a web API.
For me, an API is a lot more concrete: a set of data structures (whether they be classes, objects, pairs, tuples, lambda functions, etc.) with extensible functionality (member functions, pure functions accepting those data structures, etc.) that developers can use independently, or together, to produce some new functionality, i.e. program using interfaces.
So what I'd traditionally think of APIs are the .NET API, the C++ STL, the Java API, the Windows API, the Linux headers, Qt, GTK, even React.