I beg to differ. By relegating the science to the supp. inf., the authors have invited all sorts of other mishaps as well as the nomenclatural one. It's well known that journals are careless about keeping supplementary information around; I would not want to put money on it getting properly stored in all the various backup plans people are supposed to use (LOCKSS, etc.). Plus 90% of the time it doesn't go through peer review. In short, supplementary info is grey literature, of no greater reliability or persistence than, say, an SV-POW! post. Letting the body of a work go into that slushpile is a terrible, terrible thing to do.
-- Mike.