For the record: My terminal emulator does not do sixel, and providing that or any other graphics mechanism is not a design goal, and not in keeping with the int

For the record: My terminal emulator does not do sixel, and providing that or any other graphics mechanism is not a design goal, and not in keeping with the internal mechanics of storing the terminal display as an array of character code points. The terminal emulators that my terminal emulator is designed to supplant, the kernel built-in emulators of Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and indeed SCO Unix, don't do sixel graphics. This is not to say that I am against sixel. As someone who was doing graphics on terminals in the 1980s, sometimes by accident when I catted the wrong file, the idea that "terminals don't do graphics" seems blinkered and ahistoric to me. They do and did, in my direct experience. I'm simply not targetting that as a feature in a program that has the specific goal of matching specific kernel built-in emulators. You know where XTerm is if you want it. (-: On the gripping hand, my terminal emulator does Unicode (as do several of the kernel built-in ones, albeit with severe limitations), and so all of the things that one can do with Unicode pseudo-graphics are possible on it, from MouseText windows through progress bars using the 1/8th block glyph set to PC-style line drawing.