Update test stats - nicely done, non-Microsoft browser vendors!

README.md

@@ -57,19 +57,19 @@ When importing individual classes directly (like `var IDBKeyRange = require("fak
 
 ## Quality
 
-Here's a comparison of fake-indexeddb and real browser IndexedDB implementations on [the W3C IndexedDB test suite](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/IndexedDB) as of April 28, 2017:
+Here's a comparison of fake-indexeddb and real browser IndexedDB implementations on [the W3C IndexedDB test suite](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/tree/master/IndexedDB) as of March 14, 2019:
 
 Implementation | Percentage of files that pass completely
 --- | ---
-Firefox 53 | 93%
-Chrome 57 | 92%
-fake-indexeddb 2.0 | 88%
-Safari 10 | 83%
-Edge 14 | 59%
+Chrome 73 | 99%
+Firefox 65 | 97%
+Safari 12 | 92%
+fake-indexeddb 2 | 85%
+Edge 18 | 61%
 
 For browsers, I ran http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html and counted the passes. For fake-indexeddb, I ran `npm run test-w3c`.
 
-88% is pretty good, right? Especially considering that fake-indexeddb runs in Node.js where failure is guaranteed for tests involving browser APIs like Web Workers. There are definitley still some weak points of fake-indexeddb, all described in `src/test/web-platform-tests/run-all.js`. Your app will probably run fine, though.
+85% is pretty good, right? Especially considering that fake-indexeddb runs in Node.js where failure is guaranteed for tests involving browser APIs like Web Workers. There are definitley still some weak points of fake-indexeddb, most of which are described in `src/test/web-platform-tests/run-all.js`. Your app will probably run fine, though.
 
 ## Potential applications: