Split aria-state-or-property-permitted-5c01ea.md

[tbostic32]

Splitting the aria-state-or-property permitted into multiple rules. Essentially changing from having the 2 expectation where Expectation 1 is the state or property is permitted and Expectation 2 is the state or property is not prohibited, to 2 separate rules for each of the expectations. We also expect to have a rule for aria state or property is not deprecated in the future.

Need for Call for Review: This will require a 2 week Call for Review

---

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

• [x] Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).
• [x] Make sure you do not remove the "How to Review and Approve" section in your pull request description

After creating PR:

• [x] Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
• [x] Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
• [x] Link the PR to any issue it solves. This will be done automatically by referencing the issue at the top of this comment in the indicated place.
• [ ] Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

When merging a PR:

• [ ] Close any issue that the PR resolves. This will happen automatically upon merging if the PR was correctly linked to the issue, e.g. by referencing the issue at the top of this comment.

How to Review And Approve

• Go to the “Files changed” tab
• Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
• Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
• Make sure to also review the proposed Call for Review period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

[tbostic32]

It feels we are going to duplicate bits, need to maintain in two places (e.g. if we figure out the Applicability needs fixing), … So I get the feeling we are making things more complex to maintain without bringing any real value (we are even diluting the rule and loosing a bit of cohesion).

@Jym77 I do agree, and I left a comment on that new rule proposal (https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/2037) that we were reusing the applicability and the the passed examples from this rule. I think the larger conversation we had is that there is also likely to be a third rule around deprecated properties which will follow a very similar format to each of these rules as well. In the end, I think the decision was to just split them fully apart (each to it own atomic rule) for simplicity in covering each of those cases specifically with the knowledge that it does introduce a bit more overhead.