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 
const e = await render(<div className={true} />);
        expect(e.getAttribute('class')).toBe('true');
      });
      
      itRenders('className prop with false value', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div className={false} />);
        expect(e.getAttribute('class')).toBe('false');
      });
      itRenders('no className prop with null value', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div className={null} />);
        expect(e.hasAttribute('className')).toBe(false);
      });
    });
    describe('htmlFor property', function() {
      itRenders('htmlFor with string value', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div htmlFor="myFor" />);
        expect(e.getAttribute('for')).toBe('myFor');
      });
      itRenders('htmlFor with an empty string', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div htmlFor="" />);
        expect(e.getAttribute('for')).toBe('');
      });
      
      itRenders('htmlFor prop with true value', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div htmlFor={true} />);
        expect(e.getAttribute('for')).toBe('true');
      });
      
      itRenders('htmlFor prop with false value', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div htmlFor={false} />);