confusing security behavior

[masds]

1. The sysadmin add a user A and grant him the DBO role
to database B.

2. user A create a table C in database B

3. The sysadmin revoke the DBO from user A on database B
and leave the public role for him

4. user A still have the full control of table C, so he can
update the table or drop the table.

This is a little confusing behavior to me, is this a designed behavior?

 

[hmckillop]

If you look at the table created by User A, it is owned by them, so they can access/change it at will.
This is expected behaviour.


"I'm living so far beyond my income that we may almost be said to be living apart