People use the name "Wayland" as an umbrella term for "the entire effort on the Linux desktop get rid of X11". I'd generally agree that there aren't any desktops that flawlessly replace X11 [1], but I don't like that Wayland is the name for "the entire effort on the Linux desktop get rid of X11".

I think it can be seen in OP's list that most of the issues that OP raised are actually not due to deficiencies in the display protocol. Specifically replacing of the X11 display protocol with the Wayland display protocol. But Wayland solves fewer problems than X11. So to replace things like standardized screen recording and input processing, you need other things on top of Wayland.

And that's where by far the most issues with "Wayland" come from - stuff that has nothing to do with the display protocol, but the tremendous pains it takes to replace X11.

[1]: It's worth pointing out for fairness that X11 based desktops are also pretty flawed even if you're used to some of the flaws.

I mean this is all true, but it’s worth pointing out that Wayland is actually an effort to get rid of X11 on the Linux desktop by introducing a new protocol.

Given this, it’s not surprising Wayland has become the name associated with the overall goal.