I wouldn't bother restricting the armor proficiency. Since it's already the case that the ranger only gains his "combat style" benefits if he's wearing light or no armor, I think the 3.5 ranger already represents your "light armor and yet strong combat skill" ideal pretty well. On the other hand, the proficiency reduction isn't a very significant change, so if you felt better doing it (for flavor reasons, for instance), I doubt it'd be game-breaking, or result in an underpowered ranger, in the least.
But note that I don't think that reducing the initial proficiencies isn't enough of a disadvantage to justify the increased hit die in itself, since the ranger could always take a level of fighter, paladin, or barbarian to get medium armor (or more) while retaining his favorable hit die. The nice thing about dropping the spells is that the lack of spellcasting ability impacts rangers throughout their advancement, in the same way that the increased hit die does.
Finally, note that the 3.5e ranger with a d10 hit die and no spells seems to stack up pretty well against the fighter. The fighter's array of bonus feats and heightened focus and specialization options seem more or less fairly balanced against the ranger's strong reflex saves, additional skill points, and array of combat styles and special abilities.
