It's just a pity there isn't even a de facto standard for how to escape base 64 encoded image files. There's only 3 terminal emulators that I know of which support in-band images (Sixel aside): Kitty (not to be confused with KiTTY, a PuTTY fork), iTerm2 and Terminology. All of which have their own escape sequences.
I'd built a little script which opened an image in the terminal, irrespective of which terminal emulator you ran it would render the image in the best available format (falling back to ANSI block art if nothing better was available). It was a nightmare to write because of all the different terminals doing their own things. And when this stuff doesn't work there's no clue why because in-band escape sequences aren't something that produces an error if you get something wrong. It either works or it doesn't. Then you have multiplexers like tmux that can add their own undefined behaviour to proceedings.
As CLI tools go by, that was probably one of my most frustrating exercises for the least reward (I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've actually needed that script).
Shut up and take my money!
No, really, that would be awesomely cool. Having support for in-band inline images is a useful start yet. I'm not the hero the world needs, but if I had a lot of money I would surely pay proficient hackers to write that thing.
Sounds good to me. Technology advances by the continued reinvention of the wheel, that offers new opportunities for simplification and improvement at each iteration.
I prefer in-band images because it doesn’t require complex coordination between the process that wants to display the image and other software like X11, instead the process just writes out the appropriate bytes to the TTY and they get displayed.