I voted other because I think the wording of the existing rules is terrible.
The following is strictly my opinion.
-----------------------------------------
1) I think the RAW's intent is to have the damage from touch attacks ignore damage resistance.
2) I do not think that the RAW actually says this. I think the RAW uses the wrong game terms in the wrong way in the wrong place in this case.
3) I think writers with less than a total understanding of the rules have unadvisedly expanded the game into areas such as Wraithstrike (a broken piece of garbage if there ever was one), though this is a separate matter from the poor wording of the core rules.
-----------------------------------------
What does the RAW actually say?
SRD 3.5 said:
Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks [...]
An absolutely true, and absolutely useless, statement.
Of course DR doesn't negate touch attacks, it negates no attacks of any kind, never has, never will. DR reduces damage, it does not negate attacks.
The wording should say that
damage from touch attacks
ignores damage resistance, just like it does a few lines down for spells (etc.).