docs: Update Client Requirements template for 3.0 release

[Josmithr]

Updates the Client Requirements template with updates for 3.0. This content is embedded in the majority of our library package READMEs.

Note

This won't be merged until we are ready to begin checking in breaking changes for 3.0.

AB#78964

[github-actions]

Hi! Thank you for opening this PR. Want me to review it?

Based on the diff (14 lines, 1 files), I've queued these reviewers:

• Correctness — logic errors, race conditions, lifecycle issues
• Security — vulnerabilities, secret exposure, injection
• API Compatibility — breaking changes, release tags, type design
• Performance — algorithmic regressions, memory leaks
• Testing — coverage gaps, hollow tests

How this works

• Adjust the reviewer set by ticking/unticking boxes above. Reviewer toggles alone don't trigger anything.

• Tick Start review below to dispatch the review fleet.

• After review finishes, tick Start review again to request another run — it auto-resets after each dispatch.

• This comment updates as new commits land; your reviewer selections are preserved.

• Start review

[github-actions]

🔗 No broken links found! ✅

Your attention to detail is admirable.

linkcheck output

1: starting server using command "npm run serve -- --no-open"
and when url "[ 'http://127.0.0.1:3000' ]" is responding with HTTP status code 200
running tests using command "npm run check-links"


> fluid-framework-website@0.0.0 serve
> docusaurus serve --no-open

[SUCCESS] Serving "build" directory at: http://localhost:3000/

> fluid-framework-website@0.0.0 check-links
> linkcheck http://localhost:3000 --skip-file skipped-urls.txt

Crawling...

Stats:
  309092 links
    1963 destination URLs
    2219 URLs ignored
       0 warnings
       0 errors

[github-actions]

Bundle size comparison

Base commit: c13584f6c9e3b2118ca128d5789e53e3bc83c006
Head commit: 0cbc79e1a777571e14b28c71b7017b0ad43e18ac

⚠️ Comparison unavailable.

The PR's CI build failed — fix the build and the comment will update once the next run succeeds.

[jason-ha]

I wonder if we should call out Jest+require-ESM issue in here.
NodeJS supports require-ESM fully as of 22.12.
Jest want's NodeJS 24.9 or later.

[CraigMacomber]

We might want to explicitly support require(ESM) (see https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#loading-ecmascript-modules-using-require ) and ensure our ESM modules are compatible with that (in our case that mainly means avoiding top level await, which we currently do not use).

Suggested change

	CommonJs is no longer officially supported as of version 3.0.
	We no longer publish CommonJs modules as of 3.0, however we do support loading our ES Modules from CommonJs using [require(ESM)](https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#loading-ecmascript-modules-using-require) which is supported in NodeJS `>=22.12.0`.

[CraigMacomber]

The above statement about NodeJS version implies we currently support Node 22 and node 24 (since node 22 is less than a year from EOL).

That's fine I guess, but we might want to adjust the phrasing to just say we support Node22 and Node24 as long as they are not EOL, or something like that.

[CraigMacomber]

Is the:

• Running Fluid in a Node.js environment with the --no-experimental-fetch flag is not supported.
  line above still relevant? Perhaps we can remove it?