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 
}
      });
    });
    describe('null, false, and undefined children', function() {
      itRenders('null single child as blank', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div>{null}</div>);
        expect(e.childNodes.length).toBe(0);
      });
      itRenders('false single child as blank', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div>{false}</div>);
        expect(e.childNodes.length).toBe(0);
      });
      itRenders('undefined single child as blank', async render => {
        const e = await render(<div>{undefined}</div>);
        expect(e.childNodes.length).toBe(0);
      });
      itRenders('a null component children as empty', async render => {
        const NullComponent = () => null;
        const e = await render(<div><NullComponent /></div>);
        if (ReactDOMFeatureFlags.useFiber) {
          
          expect(e.childNodes.length).toBe(0);
        } else {
          
          
          expect(e.childNodes.length).toBe(1);
          expectEmptyNode(e.firstChild);
        }
      });
      itRenders('null children as blank', async render => {