feat: iterm2 inline image protocol support

[NSPC911]

very very questionable, still very much wip, mostly just a proof of concept, but still has the same issues as sixel, if not more (#86 also occurs)

resolves #68

[lnqs]

Hey, sorry for the late response. I'd be happy to merge iterm2 support, but I also can't test it as I don't have access to a mac.
After reading through code it looks fine to me, even though it could probably make sense to refactor some of the functionality shared between Sixel and iTerm2 to a common place.

[NSPC911]

I don't think you need a Mac to test this, this works on Wezterm because it has iTerm2 Inline Image Protocol, along with Rio Terminal (albeit in a less stable form)

However, I'm not able to fix issues related to Textual not properly rewriting the borders on the bottom, leading to issues quite similar to Sixel, or even worse.

[lnqs]

I guess the basic problem is how textual-image works. It's basically bunch of hacks hooking into textual functionality to inject data. To have a cleaner and more reliable implementation, changes to textual itself would be needed.

[NSPC911]

I was trying to vibe-code a chafa implementation NSPC911/textual-chafa, but it feels quite iffy because certain terminals just don't show anything (rio supports iT2 and sixel, but chafa displays nothing). I think it solved the border issues there, but I'll need to take a closer look as to what it actually did

However, I don't think I will be making this PR ready. Feel free to continue from my checkpoint. I may attempt to add enhanced Sixel support soon, but only time will tell.

[NSPC911]

I don't think the artifacts can be fixed.

I've tried everything, it seems nearly (or really is) impossible to fix.

[lnqs]

As this'll probably not be continues, I'll close the PR for now.

[NSPC911]

@lnqs This is working fine, why did you close it?

[NSPC911]

i forgot to mention the update that i did in 8325291

[lnqs]

I closed it because of this comment:

However, I don't think I will be making this PR ready

Didn't check it, so I didn't notice it works. I'll have a look at the code.

[lnqs]

Looks good, overall. Would you rebasing the PR (and improve on the commit messages/squashing the commits)?

[NSPC911]

I've rebased the PR, but removed the support table for iTerm2, do you want me to add that back again?

[lnqs]

I think it would make sense to have it

[lnqs]

Did you notice the failing checks?

[NSPC911]

The tests should be fixed.