[#7027] Add CSV to GoogleDocsViewer #7938
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The comment link to documentation now links to a page on working with Office files, but CSV is included under the "File types you can convert to Docs, Sheets, or Slides". It wasn't included around the time of the original inclusion [2]. Either way, it appears to work in practice as per a recent experiment [3]. [1] https://support.google.com/docs/answer/6055139?visit_id=638320303798629817-2515806591&rd=2 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20120118194636/https://support.google.com/docs/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1189935 [3] #7027 (comment)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A quick win from #7027.
The comment link to documentation now links to a page on working with Office files, but CSV is included under the "File types you can convert to Docs, Sheets, or Slides". It wasn't included around the time of the original inclusion [2].
Either way, it appears to work in practice as per a recent experiment [3].
[1] https://support.google.com/docs/answer/6055139?visit_id=638320303798629817-2515806591&rd=2
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20120118194636/https://support.google.com/docs/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1189935
[3] #7027 (comment)