ok... i'll bite... how does this compare to chrome in terms of rendering and compatibility? i don't see this thing listed on caniuse.com.
It's still relatively big, because web standards are incredibly complicated, but it's almost tractable.
If you care about browser diversity, it's important.
https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/ is fully independent and can run Gmail, but it's commercial / non-FOSS. It's funded by contracts in the set-top-box industry.
https://sciter.com/ is non-FOSS with a free edition but you shouldn't run untrusted javascript on it
And there are some lightly-maintained forks of the leaked Presto 12.x engine from before Opera became a Chromium derivative, but of course it's copyright infringement.
Flow browser passes ACID3 [1], closed source but independent (afaik, dont't really know much about it)
Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23508979
http://www.netsurf-browser.org/documentation/progress.html
The general impression I get is that it is not bad when it comes to HTML and CSS but not even close for Javascript (disabled by default because of minimal support apparently), so comparing this with Chrome is like apples to oranges, given the way the modern Web is going.
As a counterpoint, when you come across a site which should but doesn't work in one of these minimal browsers, maybe the blame should be put on the site for using needless complexity instead of the browser for not implementing it.