Fix: Lint errors fixed

EIPS/eip-7212.md

@@ -105,23 +105,23 @@ The `P256VERIFY` precompiled contract is proposed with the following input and o
 
 ### Precompiled Contract Gas Usage
 
-The use of signature verification cost by `P256VERIFY` is `3450` gas. Following reasons and calculations are provided in the [Rationale](#Rationale) and [Test Cases](#Test-Cases) sections.
+The use of signature verification cost by `P256VERIFY` is `3450` gas. Following reasons and calculations are provided in the [Rationale](#rationale) and [Test Cases](#test-cases) sections.
 
 ## Rationale
 
 The "secp256r1" elliptic curve signatures consists of `v`, `r`, `s` components. Even if recovering the public key on the curve is possible, most of the applications are not generating `v` component of the signature and it causes an uncertainty of the result values. However, the signatures can be verified with only `r` - `s` values. In order to provide an exact and more compatible method, verification is preferred over recovery to propose in a precompiled.
 
 The signature values in `r` - `s` and the public key coordinates in the `x`- `y` provides direct computations in signing and verification part, so these formats are chose in the input data format which are 32 bytes.
 
-The gas cost has proposed by comparing the performances of the `P256VERIFY` and the `ECRECOVER` which is implemented in the EVM at `0x01` address. It is seen that “secp256r1” signature verification by `P256VERIFY` is ~15% slower (elaborated in the [test cases](#Test-Cases) part) than “secp256k1” signature recovery by `ECRECOVER`, so `3450` gas is proposed by comparison which causes similar “mgas/op” values in both precompiles.
+The gas cost has proposed by comparing the performances of the `P256VERIFY` and the `ECRECOVER` which is implemented in the EVM at `0x01` address. It is seen that “secp256r1” signature verification by `P256VERIFY` is ~15% slower (elaborated in the [test cases](#test-cases) part) than “secp256k1” signature recovery by `ECRECOVER`, so `3450` gas is proposed by comparison which causes similar “mgas/op” values in both precompiles.
 
 ## Backwards Compatibility
 
 No backward compatibility issues found as the precompiled contract will be added to `PRECOMPILED_ADDRESS`, one of the next address in the precompiled address set.
 
 ## Test Cases
 
-Functional tests are applied for multiple cases in the [reference implementation](#Reference-Implementation) of `P256VERIFY` precompiled contract and they succeed. Benchmark tests are also applied for both `P256VERIFY` and `ECRECOVER` with some pre-calculated data and signatures in the “go-ethereum”s precompile testing structure to propose a meaningful gas cost for the “secp256r1” signature verifications by the precompiled contract implemented in the [reference implementation](#Reference-Implementation). The benchmark test results by example data in the assets can be checked:
+Functional tests are applied for multiple cases in the [reference implementation](#reference-implementation) of `P256VERIFY` precompiled contract and they succeed. Benchmark tests are also applied for both `P256VERIFY` and `ECRECOVER` with some pre-calculated data and signatures in the “go-ethereum”s precompile testing structure to propose a meaningful gas cost for the “secp256r1” signature verifications by the precompiled contract implemented in the [reference implementation](#reference-implementation). The benchmark test results by example data in the assets can be checked:
 
 - [P256Verify Benchmark Test Results](../assets/eip-7212/p256Verify_benchmark_test)
 - [Ecrecover Benchmark Test Results](../assets/eip-7212/ecrecover_benchmark_test)