Reusing onLine definition

[jakearchibald]

Does it make sense to reference navigator.onLine here as a minimum viable definition?

Also, I adjusted the wording to suggest the UA may use connectivity to the target origin as a signal. Does this fit with the intention of this definition?

[annevk]

This does not make much sense as an implementation requirement since navigator.onLine can be overwritten. You need to use some kind of underlying concept.

[jakearchibald]

@annevk to clarify, this would mean creating a concept that https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#dom-navigator-online would use for .onLine, then background sync could reference it too?

[annevk]

Yeah, thought we already had such a thing but I guess we don't.

[mkruisselbrink]

I thought about somehow trying to reference navigator.onLine here, but ended up not doing so since its definition is inside section 7.7, which has the scary "This feature is in the process of being removed from the Web platform." warning. But maybe that warning doesn't apply to all parts of that section?

I also considered that it might make sense to somehow link this to some definition in the netinfo spec, but that didn't seem to have anything obvious to reuse either.

[annevk]

That warning only applies to AppCache.