Thanks for all this.
It’s great to go over all this. I’m just wondering if this has been written with reference to the draft reforms from earlier in the year:
The idea had been to amend the legacy texts inline with template given in the wiki by script (having made sure any necessary adjustments to dependant code had been addressed). Does the above now supersede anything previously determined?
Though, I haven’t really dealt with them, I think this is all good with respect to the JSON’s as an info file goes along with them. In terms of the legacy texts though, additional rejigging would be needed to include the author which is currently given in the <head> (likewise the language attribute is currently given in the opening <div>, which was due to be moved to the <article> now being eye-ed up for the chop?).
Hooraaah! 
Are there any implications of this for the legacy range files?
While I understand the will to make neat, consistent distinctions between text types corresponding to nodes and such, from an HTML POV, taking the example of an1.1-10, vagga-suttas would more naturally fit the <article> element: they form a coherent whole that could, in principle, be syndicated. Further, it is perfectly semantically correct to nest <article>s.
<section> elements are for something “which doesn’t have a more specific semantic element to represent it”. I haven’t read them extensively enough to know how far this holds, but from a cursory look vagga-suttas seem to be meaningfully grouped texts that revolve around a common refrain, or explore a single detail from several aspects which combined give a complete examination of that detail and stands as equivalent to other suttas that systematically analyse a given point (ie. an <article>).
Are there any other text types in the non-Pali texts?