Alpha Mail Petrofsky:
> No, but this is not guaranteed by the process, so if you write down "the
> 'List Library' SRFI" now, someone reading that next year might be unable
> to determine if you were referring to SRFI 1 or SRFI 42.

No, but I would expect that two SRFIs with the same name would provide the
same functionality (or be howled down by someone during their discussion).
No guarantee, other than our own vigilance and the integrity of the editors.

> Furthermore, as I said in the first article in this thread, using the
> full titles is both too verbose and unamenable to embedding in an
> identifier.  [...]

OK then, but we are discussing assigning identifiers, not naming, which is
what this thread's title says.

> [...] The identifier problem is the reason that things like SRFIs 0 and 7,
> and numerous implementation-dependent module systems, allow you to refer
> to SRFI documents in a program by number, but not by title.

This is not a deficiency in SRFI but may indicate a need for SRFI identifier
SRFIs.  Actually, srfi-0 does claim to support identifiers (Rationale, 2nd
paragraph), so I don't know why you claim that it doesn't allow it.  All
that needs to be done is an identifier SRFI and that's starting...
--
MJR