It is sad that the legacy version of MS Edge did not survive. Having Chrome as the only game in town is a very bad thing for the 'net. Yes, we still have Firefox, but Mozilla's existence is tenuous and somewhat dependent on Google writing them checks whereas Microsoft has the financial resources to survive whether their browser is popular or not. In the Windows world, Chrome is so dominant that Google is in control and has little to no incentive to listen to end users. Want a browser that protects your privacy? If Google doesn't like that, too bad for you. You can use Safari, except it's not available under MS Windows and end-users aren't going to figure out how to run it under Linux. Maybe you want to do all your work under Mac OS or iOS, two nice prisons with nice views of the outside world. Me, I use Firefox and continue to hope Mozilla can survive.

The page content should be pixel-accurate for most content even if there were two different rendering engines because the specs are precise. If they are different, that's either in an area where the spec leaves decisions to the user agent or where the rendering engine is not compliant. iOS does include multiple HTML components, so perhaps it is now possible for an app to use a different renderer than iOS Safari uses, but if so, the renderer is still provided by Apple.

When using any browser on an iPad, you are using the Safari rendering engine because that's the only one Apple allows on *their* devices. So, on an iPad, the Chrome browser is a skin that replaces the Safari skin. You may prefer that skin, but in terms of rendering, etc., it's Safari all the way down. Note that it's not *your* iPad, it's *theirs*. It's nice of them to let you use it.

I don't think emphasis is required for those words, but you do you.