There is no dispute, from a HTTP (RFC2616) point of view they are different requests.

But, those requests return data representations and some of those may be the same for different URI, or some responses may be different, yet still be based on the same logical resource.

Looking at RFC3986, it clearly states that:

• “Because URIs exist to identify resources, presumably they should be considered equivalent when they identify the same resource. However, this definition of equivalence is not of much practical use, as there is no way for an implementation to compare two resources unless it has full knowledge or control of them.”
• “Our use of the terms “identify” and “identifying” refer to this purpose of distinguishing one resource from all other resources, regardless of how that purpose is accomplished (e.g., by name, address, or context). These terms should not be mistaken as an assumption that an identifier defines or embodies the identity of what is referenced, though that may be the case for some identifiers.”

My point is if you did have full knowledge and control over the URI and it were useful to identify non equivalent URI as being based on the same logical resource (and maybe representation), then you could find a way to link it to a canonical resource.

Granted, not many apps may find that useful, I just mention that there are ways.

Actually, as far as HTTP (and hence the client) is concerned, those are two different resources. That is the reason behind my remark that there are no canonical resources.