Published SRV records pointing to CNAME alias in violation of RFC 2782?
The Wikipedia article you are quoting reports what the relevant RFC 2782 for SRV records states:
The domain name of the target host. There MUST be one or more address records for this name, the name MUST NOT be an alias (in the sense of RFC 1034 or RFC 2181).
What you are seeing is a clear violation of the rules; however, it might work (and it usually does), if whatever client application is looking for that SRV record is smart enough to properly handle a CNAME record, even if it should only be expecting an A record in the response.
But it also might not work at all: it's unsupported and completely dependent on the client application; thus it should be avoided, because it's not following the proper rules and could lead to erroneous and/or unpredictable results.
This is similar to pointing a MX record to a CNAME, which is defined as just wrong in not only one, but two RFCs, and yet it's quite common practice (and no mail server seems to have a problem with it).