0 They both look ok to me. I think you do need the stop after "c.".0-

0Hi02br
02br
00I understand that both 1 and 2 are fine. Thanks for answering.02br
02br
00By the way: do you (Englishmen) prefer when someone writes "c." or "century"?0-

0I have a side question: I've started seeing CE (Common Era) used in place of AD (Anno Domini). Is that becoming more common or is it only in certain communities?0-

0 The politically correct prefer it. Increase of use depends on who is doing the writing [H]02br
00 I dislike it as a term as it is actually meaningless. There is no such thing as a "common era" - different cultures have different time scales. 0-

0 01blockquote

01cite10Newguest12cite10Hi12br
12br
10I understand that both 1 and 2 are fine. Thanks for answering.12br
12br
10By the way: do you (Englishmen) prefer when someone writes "c." or "century"?12br
12blockquote

10It is probably better to write "century", but it is not someth

0Thank you very much Feebs11 050010id5

0Hi Newguest02br
00Tell me please if it's OK to write: 02br
02br
001. In the 11th c. BC or maybe In the 11th c BC SHOULD THERE BE A PERIOD AFTER "C"?02br
02br
002. In the 11th c. AD 02br
02br
00I'd like to know what the British version of writing this looks like.02br
02br
00I understand that both 1 a

5002br
02br
00 Taking the putative birth of Christ as the pivot, you start working back through the centuries: 1st century B[efore] C[hrist]; second century BC and so on. 0240hrefhttp://tinyurl.com/35ovzu

0 01h1

00Hi Feebs 02h1

00Thanks for the infomation. 02br
02br
0011th Century BC is written as such. But 1090 01b00BC02b00 , 1089BC , etc are written with the letter 01b00c02b00 before 01i00BC02i00.02br
01h1

00 01b0011th02b00 01b00cen

0 01blockquote

02br
10But 1090 BC , 1089BC , etc are written 11span10with 12span10the letter 11b10c12b10 before BC.12br
12blockquote

10Hi,02br
02br
00"01i00with02i00" should be "01i00without02i00." 02