Thanks Jerry.  I will check out the alpha right now.

Setting aside the domain name case,  my understand has always been that the trailing slash in the case of foo.com/bar and foo.com/bar/ is redundant.  Both specify the same path component, a directory not a file.  Only the addition of an explicit file type extension to "bar" (e.g., bar.html) makes them different.   Maybe I'm out of date.  If in the absence of a trailing slash or an extension if the protocol is to assume some extension (e.g., html) then the two are different.

For the sake of clarity, I think the preferred construction would include the trailing slash.  There is no doubt what that means.

Hello, Dave.

Thank you for the question.  Trailing slashes are controversial.

Until May 2012, BookMacster flagged foo.com/bar and foo.com/bar/ as duplicates, as you would like.  But, technically these two bookmarks could refer to different web pages, and a user who did have bookmarks to one of these rare sites where the "trailing slash on a path mattered" complained about it.  After reviewing the IETF standards ("RFC" pages), we concluded that this user was correct, and updated BookMacster to correctly treat trailing slashes on path components as different URLs.

(Note that a trailing slash on the end of the host component is different, and BookMacster will normalize, for example, http://apple.com to http://apple.com/, because they will always refer to the same site.  The "/", in this case, is actually the path component.)

However, you're not the first person since then to request a more relaxed treatment of trailing slashes on paths, and we have an open trouble ticket to provide this feature.  Tell me this:  Given those two bookmarks, foo.com/bar and foo.com/bar/, if BookMacster were to normalize them, which one is correct?  With the slash or without the slash?