Captain reported confusion over a new SID procedure out of MIA; which resulted in missing a crossing restriction.

Narrative

Climbing out of MIA on the HURCN1 RNAV Departure; we were issued a clearance stating; 'Climb via the HURCN1 except maintain FL230. Approaching FL 190; the VNAV changed to PATH and directed a level off at FL190. Thinking we were still on vectors; I continued climbing to about 19;250 feet. After a brief discussion with the First Officer; I returned to FL190 since the next Waypoint JOENZ required a crossing between 11;000 feet-19;000 feet.The problem is that this JOENZ Waypoint is conditional in that it requires us to fly the 342 radial out of NIBLT and expect radar vectors to JOENZ. By the time I was reaching FL190; we were within 10 miles of JOENZ and queried ATC about whether we should be at FL190 as well as were we going to JOENZ or not. ATC replied and issued us a climb and maintain FL230 and direct JAYMC; the last point on the SID.In hindsight; I should have leveled off at FL190 based on the language of the SID page; then queried ATC. However; this new SID out of MIA can be confusing when you are issued a Climb Via with altitude constraints; but you are not technically cleared to the Waypoint requiring the altitude constraints.I recognize these are new SID procedures and that more careful reading by me would have probably prevented this; but I would like to suggest that any Climb or Descend Via routings either be connected up with no vectors or conditional expects; or have hard altitudes for the last Waypoint passed while waiting on an ATC clearance to proceed on the remainder of the SID/STAR.