A weapon can't have a +11 or higher enhancement bonus total (between the +x, and any other enhancement bonuses), unless in an epic campaign.

Correct; except under the rules provided in the Epic Level Handbook, magic weapons are limited to a maximum of +10-equivalent-enhancement-bonus (and +5 actual Enhancement bonus).

Standard wealth guidelines would make it exceedingly difficult for a non-epic character to afford such a weapon, and the opportunity cost (other items you could not afford) would generally make it undesirable anyway. That said, note that it is possible to afford and obtain epic equipment, including epic weaponry, prior to actually becoming an epic character, if your campaign/setting/ruleset includes the epic rules (this is especially true in high-wealth campaigns, or in high-power campaigns that allow characters to abuse loopholes that generate money in excess of guidelines). So it doesn’t necessarily have to be an epic campaign per se, it just needs to use the rules from Epic Level Handbook.

A weapon can have a Prefix and a Suffix enhancement on it (As long as it still follows the first notion I posted.)

There is absolutely no notion of prefixes or suffixes in 3.5; that notion was popularized primarily (as far as I know) by the computer game Diablo.¹ Any number of special weapon properties may be applied to any given weapon and in any given combination (so long as they respect the +10 limit in non-epic games and any particular rules given in the special ability’s description).

For actually naming a weapon, the standard in 3.5 statblocks seems to be to use all special properties as prefixes, but with more powerful weapons it’s more of just a list than an actual attempt to give the weapon a name. For example, I doubt any of the characters would talk about a +1 flaming-burst collision eager vorpal long sword because that “name” is absurd. They probably call it the “Flaming Sword of the Wrath of God” or something. Many of Wizards’ own “Specific Weapons” work this way, particularly when supplements provided modular effects that replicated previously-unique features.

An item can have the Masterwork, Enhancement bonus, Special Enhancement, AND Special material (Adamantine or similar), just merely has to be created with the additional costs.

Yes, but I want to comment on a few things. First, to have any magical properties (enhancement or special abilities), it must first be masterwork, and to have any special abilities, it must first have a +1 Enhancement bonus. Many special materials (adamantine and darkwood for weapons, adamantine, darkwood, dragonhide, and mithral for armors) also require masterwork status. So while yes, you can have all of these, there are relations between them such that they actually require each other in certain cases. You are not free to take exactly which you want all the time.

Also note that a weapon can only be (meaningfully) made of one material.

Specific Magical Items can be enhanced as well, as long as it is created within all legal formations as shown above.

Any existing weapon can have additional magical properties added to it. The cost to do so is the new value of the weapon, less the previous value of the item. For specific weapons, a bit of arithmetic is required to determine the new value; this is not actually detailed in the rules, but you can determine the value of any unique properties by subtracting the value of the item’s normal properties, and then add that value on to the value of the new base weapon.

This does not apply to masterwork status or special materials; items have to be crafted from scratch with those properties.

Assuming all of this is correct, I would like to request anyone whom can help me figure out a way to find enhancements

This is a bit unclear; if you mean finding them within the game, that depends heavily on your DM and the setting he is running. It could be anything from “buy it at this conveniently-located store” to “you will never find that item,” though I’d argue the game does not work particularly well at either extreme.

If you mean finding the rules for new special abilities, the Magic Item Compendium is the best single location, though almost every book included at least a few.

I was hoping for an SRD document with them all listed between the acceptable books, or if anyone has any methods easy for new players to find enhancement properties.

Outside of the SRD, which lists the properties from the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Epic Level Handbook, and Expanded Psionics Handbook, it is not legal to put the full stats online. That said, there are numerous community “handbooks” that list, rate, and recommend items, pointing you to the book where each may be found. I recommend Bungo's Bargain Basement, Ernir's list of necessary items, Shax’s Indispensible Haversack, and the Utility Belt, as well as any handbooks for the class you’re playing.

¹ Wizards of the Coast did print a few licensed Diablo books around the time of Diablo II’s release, which coincidentally was right around the time of D&D 3rd edition’s release. I have seen commentaries that 3rd edition was (or felt like it was) influenced heavily by Diablo, but I have no evidence that these were accurate (they sound similar to the accusations that 4e is too much like an MMORPG). At any rate, these books did include a prefix and suffix system for 3rd edition (as well as for AD&D, in the first licensed book), which I’ve heard good things about, but it is not a part of the usual 3.x rules.

Primary Sources

The following text is at the beginning of each errata file. (This one from the Player's Handbook errata.)

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Many read this as saying that other texts are primary sources—for example, the Expanded Psionics Handbook as the primary source for psionics (replacing the earlier edition's Psionics Handbook as the primary source for psionics) and Tome of Battle: The Book of 9 Swords as the primary source for martial adepts and martial disciplines—, but the Errata Rule mentions no texts beyond the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. DMs must decide which sources beyond these (if any) are the primary sources for their campaigns.

But, clearly, the three core books take precedence over everything each covers, including the Player's Handbook's exceedingly broad mandate to cover "rules for playing the game" (whatever that means). (Note that the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide are given non-exhaustive lists, but the Monster Manual is given what's apparently an exhaustive list, taking precedence only with regards those items. This is weird and probably not a huge source of worry to anyone unless one's going to gamer court.)

Secondary Sources

In one question, the D&D Frequently Asked Questions, Version 3.5 (last updated June 30, 2008) answers not an actual rules question but a publication question. That question is reproduced below:

Both [Complete Arcane] and [Player's Guide to Faerûn] include a feat named Innate Spell, but the prerequisites and uses per day differ. Which version is correct?

Unless stated otherwise, any time that a rule appears in two different sourcebooks (other than the PH, DMG, and MM), the most current sourcebook is considered correct and all previous sources are superseded. A book’s credits page lists its publication date (typically near the bottom of the page).

In this case, [Complete Arcane] (published in November 2004) supersedes [Player's Guide to Faerûn] (published in March 2004), and thus its version of Innate Spell should be considered the official version. (41-2)

I can't find another reference for this oft-quoted meta-rule.

In rare cases, this creates confusion. For example, the armor special ability fearsome that originally appeared in the Magic Item Compendium (Mar. 2007) was superseded by the much better armor special ability of the same name in Drow of the Underdark (May 2007) then was superseded again by the original version in the Magic Item Compendium (July 2013).¹

Warning: There are Internet places where bringing the Main FAQ into a discussion gets one mocked, shouted down, and accused of witchcraft. It is cited here only out of necessity, and I will happily edit this answer to reflect rules provided by a more well-regarded source if one can be found.

1. Which version of the armor special ability fearsome should be used in the campaign? Whatever the DM decides. This DM allows the version from Drow of the Underdark.