No. It's quite ok like this. It is in line with my vision how renderers should be made available to FOP in the future (dynamic registration like the FOP extensions). It's clear that the AWT preview doesn't manifest a certain type of file that has an officially defined MIME type. But nobody is blocked from creating a new, special one for special purposes. Only if you want to be purist about MIME types is this probably suboptimal. The MIME type is ideal for choosing a renderer. JPS, for example, works much in the same way.
RFC 2045  says this: > (1) Private values (starting with "X-") may be defined > bilaterally between two cooperating agents without > outside registration or standardization. Such values > cannot be registered or standardized. So to be on the safe side we would need to rename "application/awt" to "application/X-awt".  http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2045.html On 09.03.2005 01:31:24 Glen Mazza wrote: > The "application/awt" MIME type doesn't exist. I > think Jeremias wanted this to be null instead for > output types that lack a MIME type, correct? > > Thanks, > Glen > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > + /** The MIME type for AWT-Rendering */ > > public static final String MIME_TYPE = > > "application/awt"; > > Jeremias Maerki