That is pretty accurate. There was some discrepancies between Orthodox and Catholic on exactly which books, but they are very minor differences. There was also discussion about the canon status of the Apocrypha...a majority of votes cast at Trent made it official, but it was acceptable before then to echo Jerome’s concerns.
Most Protestant edition Bibles don’t have them, but I have several that do. Interesting reading, but it doesn’t strike me as ‘feeling’ the same as scripture.
FWIW - deuterocanonical is a term that was coined after Trent. Some Catholics think Protestants are trying to pull a fast one by calling them the Apocrypha, but that is the name they were known by until the 1500s. The Apocrypha found in the KJV and subsequent Protestant Bibles is very close, but contains 3 books or fragments not listed by Trent, although found in some editions of the Old Vulgate.
When I taught the Bible as Literature, the faculty agreed not to use the King James Version for some reason, so I settled on the Revised Standard Version, based on the KJV carefully modernized (but not PC’d).
I used the Catholic edition. As I explained to the class, there were a few differences between the Protestant and Catholic scholars who worked on it concerning a few texts, which are indicated in RSV notes (e.g. Protestants preferred Jesus’ brothers and Catholics preferred Jesus’ brethren). The apocryphal books are so labeled. The reason I chose the Catholic edition was that you get more for your money. You can ignore the apocryphal texts if you choose to do so. But they are interesting reading, and even if not taken as canonical, they still have a good deal of historical interest and were drawn upon by numerous writers.
The RSV was available in an excellent annotated Oxford edition, until Oxford went over the the NEW Revised Standard Version, which is a politically correct mess that introduces all kinds of errors and infelicities. So I turned to the Ignatius Bible, which is excellent but set up with print that is hard to read and without the annotations that had been so helpful. But a decent, reliable translation is more important than footnotes.
They certainly are history, Mr. Rogers.
Here's a KJV version with the "Apocrypha", I thought you might want to check it out, I like it.