With the checkin of #10362, the code to render to a stream now looks like:

```
import { renderToStream } from 'react-dom/server'

renderToStream(<div>some text</div>).pipe(response);
```

This is great! I am, however, a little concerned about taking the word "node" out of the mix, because I'm thinking that we may eventually want to render to [**browser** streams](https://www.w3.org/TR/streams-api/), which are a really neat feature that can be used in concert with "service-worker-side rendering". I would propose renaming `renderToStream` to `renderToNodeStream` and `renderToStaticStream` to `renderToStaticNodeStream`.  This would give room for `renderToBrowserStream` in the future.

If I make a PR on this, would it have a chance of being accepted? 

cc @gaearon & @sebmarkbage 
expect(e.getAttribute('for')).toBe('false');
      });
      itRenders('no htmlFor prop with null value', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div htmlFor={null} />);
        expect(e.hasAttribute('htmlFor')).toBe(false);
      });
    });
    describe('numeric properties', function() {
      itRenders(
        'positive numeric property with positive value',
        async render => {
          const e = await render(<input size={2} />);
          expect(e.getAttribute('size')).toBe('2');
        },
      );
      itRenders(
        'no positive numeric property with zero value',
        async render => {
          const e = await render(<input size={0} />);
          expect(e.hasAttribute('size')).toBe(false);
        },
      );
      itRenders('numeric property with zero value', async render => {
        const e = await render(<ol start={0} />);
        expect(e.getAttribute('start')).toBe('0');
      });
    });
    describe('props with special meaning in React', function() {
      itRenders('no ref attribute', async render => {
        class RefComponent extends React.Component {