A while ago, sparkfun.com changed their URL structure from

/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9266

to

/products/9266

This is nice, right? We don't need to know that it is (or was) a PHP page, and commerce, product_info, and products_id all tell us that we're looking at some products. The latter form seems like a great improvement.

However, the change would have broken existing links. So, nicely, they stuck in 302 redirects. Visit http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9266 and your browser will issue

GET /commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9266 HTTP/1.1

to which Sparkfun's servers reply

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://www.sparkfun.com/products/9266

This 302 redirect is caught by Stack Exchange's link validator as a broken link. It's not broken it works just fine. Here, try it: http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=9266

I understand that a 302 redirect is intended to be a temporary redirect, while a 301 should be used for permanent changes per RFC 2616. That said, Wikipedia and common practice use it as a redirect.

Who is in error in this situation? Is this an error in Sparkfun's redirect implementation or in Stack Exchange's URL validator?