Minor spelling/grammar fixups in BIPs 372 and 381

[HubertIGL]

Changes to bip-0372.mediawiki:

"involve" → "evolve"
Corrects word choice as "evolve" better describes the progressive development of standards

"addresses" → "addressed"
Fixes verb tense to match the passive voice construction

"Appenxix" → "Appendix"
Fixes misspelling of "Appendix"

---

Changes to bip-0381.mediawiki:

"acceps" → "accepts"
Fixes misspelling of "accepts"

---

Changes to bip-0384.mediawiki:

"implementation" → "implementations"
Changes to plural form as it refers to multiple possible implementations

[jonatack]

A few comments.

[jonatack]

While touching this paragraph, there are other fixups that can be made:

 The scope of this proposal is deliberately kept narrow; it addresses
 only spending of transaction outputs containing P2C tweaks - and does not
-addresses construction of a new P2C commitments or transactions containing them
+address construction of new P2C commitments or transactions containing them
 in their outputs.<ref>'''Why only spending of P2C tweaked outputs is covered'''
-P2C tweaks commit to external data, some of which may represent certain value
+P2C tweaks commit to external data, some of which may represent certain values
 (like in some sidechains, single-use-seal applications like RGB etc). Creation
-of such outputs much allow hardware devices to understand the structure of such
+of such outputs allows hardware devices to understand the structure of such
 extra-transaction data, which may be in different formats and constantly
-involve. Thus, this should be addresses with a separate standards (or be a
+involve. Thus, this should be addresses with a separate standard (or be
 vendor-based). The current proposal only touches the question of spending an
-output which contained previously created P2C commitment, which does not creates
-a new commitment and does not provides that kind of risk of extra-blockchain
-value loses.</ref>
+output that contained previously created P2C commitments, which does not create
+a new commitment and does not provide that kind of risk of extra-blockchain
+value losses.</ref>

[jonatack]

I think this is fine in the singular form.