The rationale claims that "It may [be] the
intention of the user that the message is printed to whatever
error port was current when the procedure error-handler
was defined" and suggests the following solution:

(define error-handler  
  (closed-lambda (msg)
    (display msg (current-error-port))
    (newline (current-error-port))
    'error))

however, this effect can be achieved using the means
that are already present in the language:

(define error-handler
  (let ((error-port (current-error-port)))
    (lambda (msg)
      (display msg error-port)
      (newline error-port)
      'error)))

While I don't deny that the interface proposed by the SRFI can be useful, 

I think that presenting a problem that has a straightforward solution

is confusing and harmful to the presentation.