But you're not even technically correct when you claim "Eh, not really. It's all a mistake how we interpret domain names."... This document clearly says that t

But you're not even technically correct when you claim "Eh, not really. It's all a mistake how we interpret domain names."... This document clearly says that the dotless form is perfectly acceptable and even expected. Take for example this snippet: Relative names are either taken relative to a well known origin, or to a list of domains used as a search list. Relative names appear mostly at the user interface, where their interpretation varies from implementation to implementation, and in master files, where they are relative to a single origin domain name. The most common interpretation uses the root "." as either the single origin or as one of the members of the search list, so a multi-label relative name is often one where the trailing dot has been omitted to save typing. Which says that relative names are meant to be used in user interface (ie by humans) and the most common interpretation of a dotless name is to be in the global/root namespace. So yes, the dotless notation comes down to own we interpret domain names. However that interpretation is not a mistake, it is expected.